HTML Document View

Full title: Response /Bestwall's Opposition to the ACC's Motion in Limine Regarding Expert Discovery Hearing scheduled for 08/31/2021 at 9:30 AM at 3-LTB-Charlotte Courthouse (RE: related document(s)1926 Motion (Other) filed by Creditor Committee The Official Committee of Asbestos Claimants of Bestwall, LLC) Filed by Garland S. Cassada on behalf of Bestwall LLC. (Cassada, Garland) (Entered: 08/20/2021)

Document posted on Aug 19, 2021 in the bankruptcy, 129 pages and 0 tables.

Bankrupt11 Summary (Automatically Generated)

Airborne exposure assessments of individuals (including workers, bystanders, do-it-yourselfers, and household contacts) exposed to asbestos during the mining and milling of asbestos, from the manufacturing of asbestos products and materials, and from the foreseeable use of asbestos-containing products, and how the results of those airborne assessments compare to current and historical occupational exposure limits and recommendations.Government regulations and public health agency assessments and recommendations regarding asbestos, asbestiform minerals, talc, and asbestos-containing products, including the beneficial uses of asbestos products and the bans on certain asbestos-containing products, restrictions on the use and handling of asbestos-containing products, exposure limits, and labeling standards and requirements.The extent to which past asbestos plaintiffs against Old GP and Bestwall failed to disclose evidence of exposures to asbestos, and the impact of any such practice on Old GP’s and Bestwall’s resolutions of asbestos cases. 27.Government regulations regarding asbestos minerals and asbestos containing products, including the bans on certain asbestos-containing products and restrictions on the use and handling of asbestos-containing products.These products generally were limited to conventional building products and did not include commercial or industrial products, such as industrial insulation products, fire proofing, asbestos cloth, or raw asbestos.

List of Tables

Document Contents

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION IN RE: Case No. 17-BK-31795 (LTB) BESTWALL LLC,1 Chapter 11 Debtor. BESTWALL’S OPPOSITION TO THE ACC’S MOTION IN LIMINE REGARDING EXPERT DISCOVERY Having failed with its “shaping” motions [Dkts. 1449, 1450, 1451, 1452] (together, the “Limiting Motions”), the Official Committee of Asbestos Personal Injury Claimants (the “ACC”) again seeks relief intended to prevent Bestwall LLC (“Bestwall” or the “Debtor”) from developing and presenting its estimation case. The ACC’s Motion in Limine Regarding Expert Discovery [Dkt. 1926] (the “Motion”) seeks to preclude expert discovery and testimony on the subjects in Bestwall’s preliminary expert disclosures. The ACC claims, without proof, that each subject is beyond the scope of the Estimation Order. Yet, none are, and nothing about them will expand the scope of the estimation hearing or unduly lengthen it. By comparison, Bestwall’s disclosures are similar in number and scope to those the debtors made in the Garlock estimation proceeding. See Exhibit A (Bestwall’s disclosure) and Exhibit B (the debtors’ disclosure of expert subjects and fields of expertise in Garlock). The Garlock ACC ultimately filed a similarly lengthy disclosure of more than one hundred subjects See Exhibit C. The Garlock trial took approximately three weeks2—the same period currently estimated for the estimation trial in this case. 1 The last four digits of the Debtor’s taxpayer identification number are 5815. The Debtor’s address is 133 Peachtree Street, N.E., Atlanta, Georgia 30303. 2 In re Garlock Sealing Techs., LLC, 504 B.R. 71, 74 (Bankr. W.D.N.C. 2014) (“The evidence . . . was presented at a hearing that took place over seventeen trial days[.]”)

1

The ACC’s Motion repackages arguments it lost in its Limiting Motions. The ACC again tries to limit any inquiry into product identification practices. Yet, the Court has already held that this subject is appropriate for estimation, and discovery directed to that issue is underway. See Order Granting Debtor’s Motion for Bankruptcy Rule 2004 Examination of Asbestos Trusts [Dkt. 1672] at 2-3. The ACC also tries to limit Bestwall’s ability to offer evidence about chrysotile causation of mesothelioma, even though the Court concluded “the debtor should have the opportunity to present its medical science evidence.”3 The ACC additionally asks the Court to hobble Bestwall’s ability to refute a new—and fallacious—argument about talc that the ACC has advanced in this case. Bestwall’s disclosures include the subject only because the ACC claims to have expert support for the assertion that Bestwall’s pre-1978 joint compound was contaminated by amphibole asbestos in either the chrysotile or talc that were components of some formulations.4 If the ACC will present evidence on this issue, Bestwall should be permitted to present its evidence as well.5 Nothing about Bestwall’s disclosures is inappropriate or impairs the ACC’s ability to prepare for the estimation trial. Bestwall’s disclosures fully inform the ACC, in detail, of both the fields of expertise from which Bestwall’s experts will come and the subjects of their anticipated testimony, as required by paragraph 8 of the Case Management Order for Estimation of the Debtor’s Liability for Mesothelioma Claims [Dkt. 1685] (the “Estimation CMO”) (“The Parties shall serve preliminary disclosures of the subjects of expert testimony and fields of expertise (but not the experts’ identities) for their respective cases-in-chief on or before July 15, 2021.”). Thus, 3 March 4, 2021 Hr’g Tr. at 18:12-13. 4 Informational Brief of the Official Committee of Asbestos Claimants of Bestwall LLC [Dkt. 939] (the “ACC Informational Brief”) at 18-19 n.34. 5 It is appropriate for a party in its case-in-chief to include evidence it may offer in response to claims central to an adverse party’s position. See Allen v. Prince George’s Cnty, Maryland, 737 F.2d. 1299, 1305 (4th Cir. 1984). Thus, Bestwall listed in its disclosures subjects for expert testimony that reasonably respond to estimation-related claims the ACC has made.

2

the ACC can assess Bestwall’s case-in-chief in time to serve appropriate rebuttal disclosures and engage and prepare experts on all potential subjects of testimony. See id. (requiring preliminary disclosures of rebuttal subjects of expert testimony and fields of expertise). The ACC, however, did not reciprocate. As discussed in Bestwall’s separate motion to compel [Dkt. 1960] (the “Motion to Compel”), the ACC and the Future Claimants’ Representative (the “FCR”) identified only fields of expertise for their experts, thereby providing insufficient information to assist the Debtor in preparing. There is no basis to exclude expert testimony before the Court has reports upon which it can assess the relevance and admissibility of the opinions that will be offered. The Motion should be denied. I. Bestwall provided detailed subject-matter disclosures consistent with its duty to make meaningful disclosures. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (the “Civil Rules”) contemplate that parties provide meaningful disclosure of likely expert testimony well in advance of trial. Under Civil Rule 26, the disclosure of both subjects and opinions typically occurs when expert reports are served. Given the time pressures in this case, the Estimation CMO bifurcated the process, requiring subject disclosure even before reports are due. This approach recognized that each side would have only 44 days to produce rebuttal reports after initial reports are exchanged—too short a time to engage new experts and prepare reports if an unanticipated subject is addressed by an opposing party’s expert. Bestwall provided detailed disclosure of potential subjects of expert testimony. The fact that Bestwall has been forthcoming and detailed works to the ACC’s advantage and is no basis for legitimate complaint. In fact, as explained in the Debtor’s Motion to Compel, the ACC’s disclosure of only thirteen fields of expertise fails to comply with the express requirements of the Estimation

3

CMO the parties agreed to. Each identified field is so broad as to arguably encompass every subject within vast areas of expertise. By purporting to leave itself free to opine on any subject within thirteen global fields, the ACC does nothing to limit the testimony to relevant subjects. II. The ACC’s complaints about specific disclosures lack merit. Beginning at paragraph 17 of its Motion, the ACC identifies specific subjects of expert testimony that it alleges exceed the proper scope of estimation. These claims will be addressed below in the order presented in the Motion. A. By continuing to raise claims about contamination of chrysotile and talc with amphibole asbestos in pre-1978 joint compound, the ACC has made those issues relevant to estimation. Paragraph 17 of the ACC’s Motion complains about Bestwall’s listing of subjects related to talc. See Motion at 9-10. Some of the subjects address issues beyond talc; to the extent that is true, the ACC’s argument in paragraph 17 apparently seeks only to preclude the talc portion of the designation. The ACC argues that talc has only “limited relevance to an estimation of pre-1978 joint compound.” Motion at 9 (emphasis added). Of course, if the ACC asserts a subject has any relevance—limited or otherwise—Bestwall is entitled to prepare and present expert testimony on that issue. Even if the ACC had not conceded relevance, however, its Motion to prevent Bestwall experts from addressing talc should be denied. The ACC Informational Brief asserted that pre-1978 joint compound products contained asbestos as a contaminant of the talc used in some formulations. See ACC Informational Brief at 3 (claiming “asbestos-containing talc was included as an ingredient in many Georgia-Pacific products including, at a minimum, All Purpose Joint Compound, Bedding Compound, Central Mix, Ready Mix, Speed Set, . . . Topping Compound, Triple Duty Joint Compound, [...]”); see

4

also Estimation CMO at ¶ 3(d) (listing the same seven products as being “the subject of the Estimation Proceeding”). The ACC Informational Brief further contended, through citation to longtime plaintiffs’ expert William Longo,6 that “[t]he source of the amphibole asbestos [allegedly found in a pre-1978 joint compound] product could be the chrysotile asbestos or talc used in the formulation.” ACC Informational Brief at 18-19 n.34. Because of the ACC’s “contamination” claim, the Court specifically included claims stemming from alleged asbestos contaminants in pre-1978 joint compounds when defining the scope of this estimation proceeding: [T]he Court shall estimate the Debtor’s aggregate liability for current and future mesothelioma claims that (a) arose, in whole or part, from alleged exposure to joint compound products that contained asbestos either as a constituent ingredient or an alleged contaminant and (b) were manufactured and sold by the Debtor or its predecessors on or before December 31, 1977 (the “Pre-1978 Asbestos-Containing Joint Compound Products”). Order Authorizing Estimation of Current and Future Mesothelioma Claims [Dkt. 1577] (“Estimation Order”) at 5 (emphasis added). Expert testimony about whether amphibole asbestos was present as a contaminant in mines from which Bestwall sourced its chrysotile and talc, whether it subsequently contaminated the joint compound products, and whether it contributed to causing mesothelioma, is squarely within the scope of the Estimation Order. The ACC Informational Brief’s allegations about talc belie the Motion’s false claim that Debtor has somehow concealed its talc use.7 Talc in joint compound was known to the ACC because state court discovery (produced to the ACC early in this case) had long ago disclosed that 6 In Garlock, Judge Hodges held Dr. Longo’s gasket studies were “not reliable,” “suffer from a list of deficiencies sufficient to render them useless,” and were “pseudo-science at best.” In re Garlock, 504 B.R. at 79-80. 7 See Motion at 2 (“[Debtor] intends to provide extensive expert testimony about talc, which the Debtor has repeatedly represented it did not use in pre-1978 joint compound.”).

5

talc was an ingredient in some joint compound formulations.8 It is not the use of talc in some formulations that is contested. Rather, Bestwall asserts that there is no evidence that any talc it used in those products contained amphibole asbestos. Bestwall is hopeful the unfounded allegations about pre-1978 joint compound containing amphibole asbestos will be clarified as discovery proceeds. Thus, the ACC may ultimately be in a position to affirm that it will not be making claims about amphibole asbestos in pre-1978 joint compound. But unless and until that happens, Bestwall must be prepared to address the subject, and properly disclosed its intent to do so in its preliminary expert disclosures. B. Medical science on chrysotile is within the scope of estimation. Paragraphs 18 and 19 of the Motion complain that Bestwall’s disclosures include medical and scientific subjects related to low-dose chrysotile causation. See Motion at 10-12. Yet, the ACC has itself designated witnesses in the fields of “Cell and Molecular Biology,” “Medical Doctor(s),” and “Medical Research Scientist.” Although the ACC has not yet disclosed the subjects within these fields their experts will address, it is reasonable to expect that they will address chrysotile causation. In both the Bondex and Garlock estimation proceedings, the ACC called witnesses (including a cell and molecular biologist and medical doctors) to testify that chrysotile in the products at issue was a cause of mesothelioma. In re Garlock, 504 B.R. at 80-82; In re Specialty Prods. Holding Corp., 2013 Bankr. LEXIS 2051, *24-25, 27-29, 2013 WL 2177694 (Bankr. D. Del. 2013). 8 For just a few examples, see, e.g., Exhibit D, BW-Ch11-00077214–BW-Ch11-00077226 (produced to the ACC on April 20, 2018) (Discovery responses produced in the Texas Asbestos MDL in 2005 disclose “talc was a constituent ingredient” at varying times in All Purpose Joint Compound, Bedding Compound, Central Mix, Ready Mix, Speed Set, Topping Compound, and Triple Duty Joint Compound.); see also, e.g., Exhibit E, Excerpts from BW-Ch11-00137826–BW-Ch11-00138375 (produced to the ACC on April 29, 2018) (listing “Glacial Talc 325” in various pre-1978 joint compound formulations including Triple Duty, Bedding Compound, Topping Compound, and others).

6

The ACC misstates Bestwall’s position on chrysotile in this case. Bestwall has consistently made it clear that it does not seek a global finding that chrysotile is never a cause of mesothelioma. Bestwall’s focus is only on the exposures typical of claims against it, and its goal is to provide the Court with the context necessary to estimate the value of those claims. See, e.g., Informational Brief of Bestwall, LLC [Dkt. 12] at 2 (“This brief will describe . . . the medical and scientific evidence that establishes the low potency of chrysotile, the low exposure levels for Bestwall’s products and the differences between chrysotile and amphibole forms of asbestos[.]”); id. at 17 (“There are no studies pertaining to chrysotile sources used by Bestwall showing an increased incidence of mesothelioma at the levels of exposure typically alleged by Bestwall claimants with the most contact with Bestwall’s products.”); id. at 18 (“Like Garlock’s products, Bestwall’s products ‘resulted in a relatively low exposure to asbestos to a limited population,’ ‘of a relatively less potent chrysotile asbestos.’”) (quoting In re Garlock, 504 B.R. at 73, 75); Motion of the Debtor for Estimation of Current and Future Mesothelioma Claims [Dkt. 875] at 6 (“[N]o reliable studies demonstrate that the levels of exposure from chrysotile end-products like joint compound are causes of mesothelioma. . . . Moreover, there is no legitimate dispute that even if chrysotile fibers could cause mesothelioma, the potency of those fibers is substantially lower than the potency of amphibole asbestos.”); Jan. 22, 2021 Hr’g Tr. at 381:10-21, 383:7-19 (Mr. Gordon). The value of claims undeniably hinges on the strength of the ACC’s allegation that low cumulative chrysotile exposure somehow caused the mesotheliomas of those making claims. The ACC’s Motion tries to reargue points rejected when the Court considered its motion to prevent Bestwall from presenting medical science evidence. See Order Denying the ACC’s Motion Requesting the Court Exclude the Use of Medical Science Evidence in the Estimation Proceeding [Dkt. 1660]. The ACC’s proposed order appears to ask the Court to prevent Bestwall

7

from presenting expert testimony on any of the subjects that it disclosed, thereby going even beyond the relief sought in its Limiting Motions. The ACC selectively excerpts statements by Mr. Gordon at various hearings. But Bestwall has been consistent that the science on chrysotile is relevant evidence for estimation. For example, at the hearing on the ACC’s Limiting Motions, Mr. Gordon explained: [W]hat’s being suggested by the Committee here is that you would not be given any evidence in terms of the extent of exposure experienced by claimants in this case, no evidence on the relative potency of chrysotile-containing joint compound to amphibole, amphiboles that appeared in other products, such as insulation products. And so you’re, you’re not going to have or be given any evidence that provide any context around this. Now again, we’re not asking your Honor to accept the conclusions reached by Judge Hodges based on the evidence submitted in the Garlock case. We’re simply asking your Honor for the opportunity to present our evidence. * * * [W]e’re asking [the Court] to estimate the liability at the end of the day. Our job is to present you with sufficient evidence to be in a position to make a fair and reasoned judgment as to what that liability would be and to suggest before this process has even begun that we should be restricted from putting on evidence that addresses basic science issues about whether or not, frankly, the company was a major cause of asbestos disease or it wasn’t seems to just thwart the, in my mind, the objective of this process, which is, ultimately, to put you in the best position you can be in based on the most fulsome record you can have, and certainly not a one-sided record, to make a judgment one way or the other. Jan. 22, 2021 Hr’g Tr. at 381:10-21, 383:7-19 (emphasis added). In ruling on the ACC’s medical science motion, the Court explained that it would allow Bestwall to present the causation evidence relating to its products: I conclude that the debtor should have the opportunity to present its medical science evidence. The ACC will have the same opportunity and the Court will make a well-informed decision about the medical science issues after hearing from both sides. March 4, 2021 Hr’g Tr. at 18:12-16. The current science on chrysotile causation will be relevant to estimation here in the same way it was relevant in the Garlock estimation. “[I]t is sufficient for the court to find that,

8

predominantly, Garlock’s products exposed people to only a low-dose of a relatively less potent chrysotile asbestos . . ..” In re Garlock, 504 B.R. at 75. C. Product identification issues and claiming practices are within the scope of the estimation. Paragraph 20 of the Motion complains of subjects addressing various practices utilized when settlements the ACC seeks to rely upon were negotiated. See Motion at 12-13. The ACC has been promoting an estimation methodology based on the theory that past settlements reflect the value of the current and future claims at issue. The ACC will have the burden to prove that the facts and circumstances driving those settlements establish the Debtor’s asbestos liability. Nevertheless, the ACC has repeatedly attempted to block Bestwall from showing that settlements relied upon by the ACC do not in fact establish liability because, among other reasons, alternative exposure information had been suppressed or withheld. Expert testimony on these tort system practices will enable the Court to fully assess whether Bestwall’s historical settlements should be used as proxies for valuing current and future asbestos claims. The ACC’s objections to discovery on these issues have been rejected. See Order Granting Debtor’s Motion for Bankruptcy Rule 2004 Examination of Asbestos Trusts [Dkt. 1672] at 2-3 (overruling objections to, and granting, Bestwall’s motion for discovery “relevant to specific purposes in connection with estimation . . . , specifically: the determination of whether pre-petition settlements of mesothelioma claims provide a reliable basis for estimating the Debtor’s asbestos liability; [and] the estimation of the Debtor’s asbestos liability[.]”). Discovery on these issues is underway, and there is no basis to preclude these areas of expert testimony.

9

D. Other subject entries in the disclosures are not “ill-designed” or “superfluous.” In paragraph 21, the Motion incorrectly claims four subjects (numbers 8, 72, 28, and 102(f)) “appear ill-designed and superfluous.” Motion at 13. All are appropriate topics of expert testimony. Subject 8 deals with construction sequencing, which is relevant for a number of reasons, including to understand and evaluate claims that bystanders had significant exposure to asbestos from joint compound used by others. How various categories of claimants may have been exposed to the product at issue and the nature of likely other exposures are topics relevant to estimation. In Garlock, the court received that kind of evidence and relied on it in reaching its estimation opinion. In re Garlock, 504 B.R. at 77-78. The ACC’s position that Bestwall has “substantial liability” for bystander exposure emphasizes the importance of this evidence.9 Subject 72 relates to smoking. Bestwall does not anticipate substantial testimony on that issue, but smoking’s relationship with asbestos-related disease is relevant to evaluating causation of mesothelioma claims. See, e.g., July 23, 2013 Garlock Estimation Trial Tr. (excerpts attached hereto as Exhibit F) at 284:1-286:16 (Dr. Garabrant testimony); Jan. 8, 2013 Bondex Estimation Trial Tr. (excerpts attached hereto as Exhibit G) at 117:3-16 (Dr. Feingold testimony). Subject 28 addresses government regulation and public health agency statements. The ACC challenges that subject even though its own expert disclosure designated “Public Health.” Moreover, the ACC Informational Brief relied on the positions of “U.S. and international agencies” and cites at length from statements by the Consumer Product Safety Commission. See ACC Informational Brief at 41, 51. Bestwall will address those statements through experts who can explain the policies that drive public health agency determinations. Such testimony will assist 9 See, e.g., ACC Informational Brief at 21-22 (“As a result, Old GP had substantial asbestos liability from . . . [e]xposures to users and bystanders from dust generated by asbestos products manufactured or supplied by Old GP.”).

10

the Court in determining whether government and public health agency statements and actions are even admissible under Daubert and the probative value, if any, they have. For example, after hearing expert testimony on these issues, the court in Garlock stated, “The court finds no probative value to the statements of safety and regulatory agencies.” In re Garlock, 504 B.R. at 81. Subject 102(f) is “The history of non-malignant claiming.” This was a topic addressed in Garlock and is relevant for several reasons, including understanding the foundation of settlement practices, the history of abusive practices in asbestos litigation, and the context in which the focus shifted from asbestosis claims to mesothelioma claims. See, e.g., July 26, 2013 Garlock Estimation Trial Tr. (excerpts attached hereto as Exhibit H) at 1149:9-1162:24 (Brickman testimony). E. Merely because facts are involved does not preclude expert testimony on a subject. In Paragraph 22, the ACC’s Motion lists six subjects that it contends “sound in fact, and are inappropriate for the use of expert testimony on the topic.” Motion at 13-14. The claim for each subject is not that it is beyond the scope of the estimation, but that an expert should not be allowed to have opinions about these issues. Most subjects about which the ACC makes this attack relate to historical issues and/or matters involving voluminous documents. A qualified expert testifying to otherwise admissible opinions on these matters is by far the best way to streamline and present the opinions and underlying data.10 For example, the ACC apparently contends an expert should not testify about the sales of products that are the subject of estimation (Subject 6). The evidence is relevant to 10 See, e.g., Bayou Accredited Fund, LLC v. Redwood Growth Partners, L.P. (In re Bayou Group, LLC), 396 B.R. 810, 841 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2008) (expert summary admitted because of “[t]he volume of the source documents, the scope and breadth of the task, and the importance of the knowledge and experience of an expert”), affirmed on this issue by Christian Bros. High Sch. Endowment v. Bayou No Leverage Fund, LLC (In re Bayou Group, LLC), 439 B.R. 284, 336-337 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (“As the Bankruptcy Court held, the compilations and summaries included in the [expert’s] Report and attached to [the expert]’s declarations clearly fall under Rule 1006 and are therefore properly considered.”).

11

understand the population who may have had contact with Bestwall’s joint compounds. The ACC has designated “Market Share” in its expert disclosures. It seems self-evident that the ACC’s expert on Market Share will rely on product sales information in preparing an expert report. The ACC also complains about subject 102(v) of “Verdicts for and against Old GP in asbestos cases.” Presumably it is the ACC’s position that a fact witness is necessary to testify about each verdict. Yet it is far quicker and likely much more help to the Court for a qualified expert to summarize and opine regarding Old GP’s verdict history. The same is true for Bestwall’s sources of raw materials (Subject 11), numbers of current claims (Subject 81), and Bestwall’s historical costs for resolving litigation (Subject 102(e)). Similarly, to the extent they are relevant, as discussed above, a qualified expert can identify and explain applicable government regulations (Subject 27). Of course, once expert reports and rebuttal reports are submitted, the Court will be able to assess whether this kind of expert testimony is based on a proper foundation and otherwise is admissible. But now is not the time to exclude witnesses from assisting the factfinding on these issues or opining on subjects related to these facts. III. Premature exclusion of expert evidence is not warranted. Without waiting for expert reports that will provide the Court a foundation for assessing how the experts’ opinions relate to estimation, the ACC asks the Court to issue a premature ruling that entire subjects are off limits. Such action is unwarranted for the reasons stated above. Moreover, the proper time to assess whether experts should be permitted to testify is after expert reports are presented. Only then will the Court have a foundation to assess the relevance and reliability of expert opinions. Nor is extending the trial time an issue. As explained above, similarly detailed disclosures in Garlock by the debtors and the ACC did not lead to a trial beyond the currently anticipated

12

length of this estimation trial. Additionally, protection against undue length of trial will be provided by the time limits the parties have contemplated the Court will impose. Each party will have an incentive to allot its time to the issues it believes most important. Accordingly, not all subjects in Bestwall’s expert disclosures are likely to consume substantial time. It is likely that expert witnesses may have only a few words to say on some topics (such as smoking, for example). Yet, had Bestwall failed to include that subject in its disclosures it could have faced an objection. Cf. Golden Nugget, Inc. v. Chesapeake Bay Fishing Co., L.L.C., 93 Fed. Appx. 530, 535 (4th Cir. 2004) (an undisclosed opinion may be excluded). That reality, in addition to its duty to comply with the Estimation CMO, was the reason Bestwall attempted to list all reasonably foreseeable subjects of case-in-chief expert testimony. Bestwall’s detailed disclosure of subjects expected to be covered does not threaten to lengthen the trial. IV. Conclusion For all these reasons, the Motion should be denied.

13

Dated: August 20, 2021 Respectfully submitted, Charlotte, North Carolina /s/ Garland S. Cassada Garland S. Cassada (NC Bar No. 12352) Richard C. Worf, Jr. (NC Bar No. 37143) Kevin R. Crandall (NC Bar No. 50643) ROBINSON, BRADSHAW & HINSON, P.A. 101 North Tryon Street, Suite 1900 Charlotte, North Carolina 28246 Telephone: (704) 377-2536 Facsimile: (704) 378-4000 E-mail: gcassada@robinsonbradshaw.com rworf@robinsonbradshaw.com kcrandall@robinsonbradshaw.com Gregory M. Gordon (TX Bar No. 08435300) Amanda Rush (TX Bar No. 24079422) JONES DAY 2727 North Harwood Street, Suite 500 Dallas, Texas 75201 Telephone: (214) 220-3939 Facsimile: (214) 969-5100 E-mail: gmgordon@jonesday.com asrush@jonesday.com (Admitted pro hac vice) Jeffrey B. Ellman (GA Bar No. 141828) JONES DAY 1221 Peachtree St. NE, Ste. 400 Atlanta, Georgia 30361 Telephone: (404) 581-3939 Facsimile: (404) 581-8330 E-mail: jbellman@jonesday.com (Admitted pro hac vice) Cary Ira Schachter (TX Bar No. 17719900) Raymond P. Harris, Jr. (TX Bar No. 09088050) Erin A. Therrian (TX Bar No. 24072524) SCHACHTER HARRIS, LLP 909 Lake Carolyn Parkway, Suite 1775 Irving, Texas 75039 (214) 999-5700 Email: cschachter@shtriallaw.com rharris@shtriallaw.com etherrian@shtriallaw.com (Admitted pro hac vice)

14

ATTORNEYS FOR DEBTOR AND DEBTOR IN POSSESSION

15

EXHIBIT A

16

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION IN RE: Case No. 17-BK-31795 (LTB) BESTWALL LLC,1 Chapter 11 Debtor. DEBTOR’S PRELIMINARY DISCLOSURE OF EXPERT SUBJECTS AND FIELDS OF EXPERTISE FOR ITS ESTIMATION CASE-IN-CHIEF Pursuant to the Order Authorizing Estimation of Current and Future Mesothelioma Claims (Dkt. 1577) (the “Estimation Order”) and the Case Management Order for Estimation of the Debtor’s Liability for Mesothelioma Claims (Dkt. 1685) (the “Case Management Order”), Bestwall LLC (“Bestwall” or the “Debtor”) hereby serves this preliminary disclosure of the subjects of expert testimony and fields of expertise for its case-in-chief. This disclosure is preliminary and, because both fact and expert discovery are ongoing, may be supplemented in the future. Particular expert witnesses may be called to testify on multiple subjects within their fields of expertise. Specific references to expert witness subjects are not intended to narrow references to more general subjects, which should be given their broadest possible interpretation. No subject disclosed herein is intended to alter the scope of the Estimation Proceeding authorized by this Court in the Estimation Order or the Case Management Order. Materials upon which experts will rely are not listed comprehensively below, and the Debtor reserves the right for its experts to rely on any material. Subjects listed below may be duplicative of subjects the Debtor offers in rebuttal of the cases presented by the Official Committee of Asbestos Claimants 1The last four digits of the Debtor’s taxpayer identification number are 5815. The Debtor’s address is 133 Peachtree Street, N.E., Atlanta, Georgia 30303.

17

(“Committee”) and the Future Claimants’ Representative (the “FCR”). The Debtor reserves all rights to designate areas of rebuttal testimony in response to expert subjects designated by the Committee and the FCR, and to supplement this disclosure with additional expert testimony related to or in response to expert disclosures or reports offered by any other party. A. Fields of Expertise  Industrial hygiene  Pulmonology  Internal medicine  Epidemiology  Toxicology  Pathology  Genetics  Geology/petrology/mineralogy  Construction practices/engineering  Public health  Physics/optics  Psychology and neuroscience  The manufacture, marketing, and historical use of Bestwall Joint Compound Products and of asbestos-containing products made or sold by other manufacturers and distributors.  Asbestos claims analysis, forecasting, and estimation, including economics, econometrics, data science, statistics, and finance.  Law; asbestos litigation; the history of asbestos litigation against Debtor and other companies; the history of asbestos chapter 11 cases; the history, development, and structure of asbestos trusts and the asbestos trust system; and the relationship between the trust system and asbestos litigation in federal and state courts. B. Expert Witness Subjects 1. The joint compound products the former Georgia-Pacific LLC (“Old GP”) manufactured and sold before 1978, identified on pages 5-6 of the Estimation Order and in paragraph 3(d) of the Case Management Order (collectively, the “Bestwall Joint Compound Products”). 2. The formulas of and the process involved in the manufacture of the Bestwall Joint Compound Products, including the fiber type and content of the Bestwall Joint Compound Products made with asbestos as an added ingredient. 3. Old GP’s efforts to develop asbestos-free substitutes for the Bestwall Joint Compound Products made with asbestos as an added ingredient, and its efforts to market those products. 4. Old GP’s efforts to communicate information about asbestos to the users of its products, including through labeling. 5. Old GP’s sales and distribution networks for Bestwall Joint Compound Products.

18

6. Sales of the Bestwall Joint Compound Products, and sales of joint compounds by others in the United States. 7. Historical uses of Bestwall Joint Compound Products and of other manufacturers’ and distributors’ asbestos-containing products, including the methods and tools employed during typical use of those products, and the occupations that typically used those products. 8. Methods of construction sequencing and scheduling, including why construction projects are sequenced and scheduled the way they are. 9. Whether other trades would work in the same spaces as those installing and finishing drywall with joint compound, including the Bestwall Joint Compound Products. 10. Safety, health, and other practical considerations related to residential, commercial, and industrial construction sites over time and related to asbestos-containing products used on those sites. 11. Sources of asbestos and talc used in those Bestwall Joint Compound Products made with asbestos and talc as added ingredients. 12. Geologic conditions that lead to the formation of asbestiform minerals, their non-asbestiform varieties, and talc. 13. Whether and to what extent there is evidence of amphibole asbestos or other asbestiform minerals present in mines from which Old GP sourced chrysotile and talc used for the Bestwall Joint Compound Products made with chrysotile and talc as added ingredients. 14. Whether and to what extent amphibole asbestos or other asbestiform minerals can be found in other chrysotile and talc mines. 15. Methods of identifying asbestiform minerals and distinguishing them from their nonasbestiform varieties. 16. The nature of asbestos and asbestiform minerals, and how they compare with nonasbestiform varieties of minerals. 17. Differences between asbestos fiber types, including how they differ in size, chemical composition, structure, surface chemistry, morphology, biopersistence, resistance to body defenses and other various media, surface charge, and functionality. 18. The role of industrial hygiene in protecting the health and safety of workers in the workplace, and the interaction of industrial hygiene and the use of asbestos and asbestos-containing products in the United States. 19. The various types of historical and currently manufactured asbestos-containing products and other uses of asbestos minerals, including their respective asbestos fiber type, content, and foreseeable use. 20. For the asbestos sources with which typical Bestwall claimants would come in contact, the asbestos content, fiber type, and potential airborne asbestos exposure associated with those sources. 21. Whether there is any reliable evidence that Bestwall Joint Compound Products contained asbestiform amphiboles. 22. The development of the knowledge over time of the hazards, health risks, and controls associated with asbestos minerals and the use of asbestos products and with talc and the use of talc-containing products.

19

23. Historical and current information regarding bulk, air, and dust sampling and analytical methods for assessing the presence and airborne concentration of asbestos, including the proper use, application, and limitations of those methods. 24. Current and historical literature describing exposures from asbestos and asbestos-containing products. 25. How cumulative airborne exposure is produced by various exposures accumulating over time, and how it is measured in fiber/cc-years. 26. Airborne exposure assessments of individuals (including workers, bystanders, do-it-yourselfers, and household contacts) exposed to asbestos during the mining and milling of asbestos, from the manufacturing of asbestos products and materials, and from the foreseeable use of asbestos-containing products, and how the results of those airborne assessments compare to current and historical occupational exposure limits and recommendations. 27. Government regulations and public health agency assessments and recommendations regarding asbestos, asbestiform minerals, talc, and asbestos-containing products, including the beneficial uses of asbestos products and the bans on certain asbestos-containing products, restrictions on the use and handling of asbestos-containing products, exposure limits, and labeling standards and requirements. 28. The risk assessments or other analysis or information upon which the government regulations and public health agency recommendations regarding asbestos minerals and asbestos-containing products were based. 29. Why the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and other regulatory or public health agencies do not regulate or recommend different exposure limits based on fiber type. 30. How a job exposure matrix can be constructed and used to assess the airborne asbestos exposures over time of various occupations. 31. How information from responses to the Personal Injury Questionnaire (“PIQ”) may be used to divide occupations into groups with similar work practices associated with intensity, frequency, proximity, and duration of contact with and foreseeable use of joint compound products, including Bestwall Joint Compound Products, and other asbestos exposure sources. 32. The estimated range of the cumulative airborne asbestos exposure from work with or around asbestos-containing products for typical individuals in the similar exposure groups. 33. The measured environmental asbestos levels, and sources of asbestos in the environment generally (i.e., ambient air), in the workplace environment, and in drinking water. 34. Whether Old GP’s and other asbestos-containing product manufacturers’ and distributors’ conduct, including labeling and developing substitutes, was consistent with then-current government regulations and the state of knowledge in the scientific community regarding the potential hazards of asbestos and talc. 35. Whether the use of settled dust methods or Tyndall or high intensity light methods provide a proper scientific basis for assessing exposure from work with asbestos and asbestos-containing products. 36. Whether respirable asbestos fibers can be identified while viewing videos of work activities recorded in natural light or during the use of so-called Tyndall lighting.

20

37. General medicine issues relevant to asbestos-related diseases, including lung, airway, and pleural anatomy, physiology, function, and other defense mechanisms, and the mechanisms by which asbestos fibers do or do not cause a particular disease. 38. How mesothelioma and the other asbestos-related diseases or conditions are diagnosed and treated. 39. The role of immunohistochemical and special staining in making the diagnosis and predicting prognosis of mesothelioma, and the role of molecular genetic analysis in identification of genetic abnormalities of mesothelioma. 40. The therapeutic use of talc in treating certain pleural and pulmonary conditions. 41. The differences between diffuse malignant mesothelioma and conditions for which the nomenclature may include “mesothelioma.” 42. The dose-response relationship for development of asbestos-related diseases, including mesothelioma, and the significance of dose in causation of an asbestos-related disease. 43. The latency period (time between first exposure to asbestos and onset of asbestos-related disease) associated with each type of asbestos-related disease, including mesothelioma. 44. The methods for determining causality of mesothelioma and other diseases, including determining whether and the extent to which an exposure to a substance caused or substantially contributed to causing an individual’s disease. 45. Whether the foreseeable handling, installation, removal, or contact, if any, with Bestwall Joint Compound Products by typical claimants or by workers in the occupations in each similar exposure group would be a substantial factor or producing cause of the mesothelioma of typical claimants in that group. 46. For the occupations and industries of typical current and future claimants, the cause of the mesothelioma of typical claimants, the correlation between the cumulative lifetime asbestos exposure from Bestwall Joint Compound Products to the levels associated with disease, and the relative contribution to total asbestos exposure by Bestwall Joint Compound Products. 47. Whether foreseeable work with and around Bestwall Joint Compound Products increased a worker’s real (as opposed to hypothetical) risk of asbestos-related disease. 48. Whether asbestos exposure from Bestwall Joint Compound Products was a substantial cause of, or a substantial contributing factor in causing, claimants’ mesothelioma. 49. The various kinds of evidence upon which medical, biological, and epidemiological science make causal determinations, and the proper role of each. 50. Concepts in epidemiologic studies, including confounding, statistical significance, relative risk and other risk ratios, p-values, confidence levels, and confidence intervals. 51. The epidemiology of mesothelioma, including the relative potency, if any, of the different fiber types to cause the disease, the cumulative exposure of asbestos by fiber type associated with disease, and the incidence of mesothelioma related to and not related to asbestos exposure. 52. Animal experiments and in vitro experiments as they relate to mesothelioma. 53. The methodology for evaluating the quality of scientific research, and the application of the methodology to the research relied upon by the experts in this case. 54. The significance, or lack thereof, of secondary medical and scientific publications such as reviews, commentary, and advocacy in assessing claims of causation.

21

55. The defects in methodology, data, or reasoning of publications asserting chrysotile causation of mesothelioma. 56. Methods for estimating future incidence of mesothelioma related to and not related to asbestos exposure. 57. The historical incidence and projected current and future incidence of mesothelioma related to and not related to asbestos exposure. 58. Whether and the extent to which joint compounds containing asbestos contributed to or will contribute to causing mesothelioma. 59. The relative risks of mesothelioma that may be asbestos related in various occupations and industries. 60. Whether every exposure to asbestos or every exposure above background exposure increases one’s risk of developing asbestos-related disease. 61. The cumulative exposure at which the various asbestos minerals have been shown to have a statistically significant increased risk associated with mesothelioma. 62. Whether low-dose exposure to chrysotile causes mesothelioma. 63. Whether exposure to talc causes mesothelioma. 64. Whether exposure to non-asbestiform amphiboles causes mesothelioma. 65. The differences in causation of pleural mesothelioma, peritoneal mesothelioma, and mesothelioma occurring in other sites. 66. Causes of mesothelioma other than asbestos exposure. 67. The significance of commercial chrysotile end products potentially containing trace levels of amphiboles. 68. The effect of asbestos fiber length on toxicity. 69. Human and laboratory research studies, including cellular and molecular genetic studies on the causation of mesothelioma and the role of random errors in cell replication and germline mutations in causing mesothelioma. 70. Whether and the extent to which genetic mutations interact with environmental exposure to cause mesothelioma, and the methods for making those determinations. 71. Whether ambient or background exposure and background levels of asbestos fibers in human tissue present a risk of disease. 72. The health consequences of smoking, and the relationship between smoking and asbestos-related diseases. 73. How tissue fiber burden analysis is conducted, its significance, and the lung and other tissue burdens associated with various occupations and industries. 74. The mandates, missions, and goals of regulatory and public health agencies and organizations regarding the public’s health and the context of their statements regarding asbestos. 75. The methods for risk assessment and how risk assessment as used by regulatory and public health agencies and organizations differs from the methods for determining causation of disease. 76. The proper use of extrapolation and the linear no-threshold dose-response model in public health. 77. The processes by which people create, preserve, retrieve, and alter memories, and how various factors interact with and affect the reliability of those processes.

22

78. Whether methods used by plaintiff law firms to develop product identification testimony employ any of the safeguards memory science has developed to guard against false identification. 79. Whether methods used by plaintiff law firms to develop product identification testimony are likely to result in false identification, even without intentional dishonesty by lawyers or clients. 80. Applicable law and procedure concerning causation and other scientific topics in mesothelioma claims against Bestwall. 81. The number of current mesothelioma claims against the Debtor. 82. The projected number of future mesothelioma claims against the Debtor. 83. The demographic, occupational, and other relevant characteristics of persons who have been or will be diagnosed with mesothelioma and have asserted or will assert claims against the Debtor. 84. The number of projected mesothelioma claims against the Debtor by exposure groups, including the number of estimated current and future claimants in each exposure group. 85. Likelihood of recovery for claimants, if any, whose claims reach trial and the factors which impact the likelihood. 86. The number of claimants who are able, and will be able in the future, to identify contact with Bestwall Joint Compound Products, and the nature of such contact. 87. Methods by which products to which claimants were exposed or with which they came into contact are identified by claimants and defendants. 88. Significance of Old GP’s past trial verdicts for estimating likelihood of recovery. 89. Impact on the likelihood of recovery of differences between state procedure and the procedures under which asbestos claims would be litigated under Debtor’s plan of reorganization. 90. The aggregate total damages expected to be awarded to holders of mesothelioma claims who are able to obtain a judgment, from all potential defendants without taking into account set-off, credit, and apportionment. 91. The aggregate total damages expected to be awarded to claimants typical to the exposure groups who are able to obtain a judgment, from all potential defendants without taking into account set-off, credit, and apportionment. 92. Economic damages of holders of current and future mesothelioma claims against Bestwall. 93. Applicable law concerning the recovery a claimant may collect from a particular defendant, including Debtor. 94. The projected aggregate amounts that holders of mesothelioma claims will recover from sources other than Bestwall, including bankruptcy trusts and other defendants that are not in bankruptcy. 95. The projected aggregate value of Debtor’s set-off and contribution rights under applicable law. 96. The effect of Debtor’s apportionment rights, in states following some version of several liability, on the amount of judgments claimants could obtain against Debtor. 97. Trends and developments in the law concerning allocation of damages to particular defendants, as well as contribution, set-off, apportionment, and similar topics. 98. Trends and developments in the law governing liability in asbestos cases, including the law of causation.

23

99. Estimated predicted share of liability attributable to Bestwall for current and future mesothelioma claims. 100. Claimants’ responses to the PIQ and any additional discovery, and conclusions to be drawn therefrom in all relevant subject matter areas listed herein. 101. Materials from bankruptcy cases, including ballots and Bankruptcy Rule 2019 statements, and conclusions to be drawn therefrom in all relevant subject matter areas listed herein. 102. The history of asbestos litigation against Old GP, Bestwall, and other asbestos defendants, including: a. The nature of asbestos litigation since the 1970s. b. The organization and history of the asbestos plaintiffs’ bar. c. Fraud and other misconduct in asbestos litigation. d. How Old GP’s and Bestwall’s position in asbestos litigation has changed over time. e. Old GP’s and Bestwall’s historical costs for resolving and litigating asbestos claims. f. The history of non-malignant claiming. g. The generation of fraudulent asbestos claims based on unreliable and fraudulent medical and exposure evidence, and the effect on Old GP, Bestwall, and other defendants. h. Techniques practiced by asbestos plaintiffs’ law firms for generating product identification evidence against Old GP, Bestwall, and other defendants in asbestos cases. i. The development of unreliable, misleading, and false evidence against Old GP and Bestwall, after the Bankruptcy Wave. j. Changes in testimony in Old GP and Bestwall cases after the Bankruptcy Wave, including trends in the identification of products for which bankrupts were responsible, and the practices of asbestos plaintiffs’ law firms in this regard. k. Inaccurate and misleading testimony given by expert witnesses testifying for plaintiffs in prior asbestos personal injury cases. l. The corruption of the scientific literature by plaintiffs’ lawyers and their affiliates. m. What economic modelling and analysis indicates regarding the impact of omission and concealment of exposure evidence on Old GP’s and Bestwall’s settlements after the Bankruptcy Wave. n. The history of asbestos bankruptcies, including the impact of the bankruptcies on tort litigation and the establishment, funding, and operation of Trusts and the evolution of trust distribution procedures. o. The nature of Trusts, including their procedures and payments. p. Fraud and abuse in connection with Trusts and asbestos litigation against Old GP, Bestwall, and other defendants. q. Legislative developments concerning Trusts in the United States Congress and state legislatures. r. Procedures for administering asbestos cases, and changes in such procedures, including procedures relating to Trusts. s. Trends in the total compensation received by asbestos claimants from all sources over time, and the sources of that compensation.

24

t. Trends in filings of asbestos claims against Old GP, Bestwall, and other defendants. u. Trends in Trust claiming practices of asbestos claimants, including the timing of Trust claims. v. Verdicts for and against Old GP in asbestos cases. w. Ethical rules for attorneys and their application in asbestos litigation. x. Trends in the total compensation received by lawyers representing asbestos claimants over time, and the sources of that compensation. y. Trends in the cost to Old GP and Bestwall of litigating mesothelioma claims. 103. General economic models of litigation, including models of incentives to litigate or settle cases, and conclusions to be drawn from historical verdicts in asbestos cases. The application of such models to Old GP’s and Bestwall’s history of asbestos litigation. 104. The economic impact of litigation costs on asbestos litigation against Old GP, Bestwall, and other defendants. 105. Economic models of the relationship among settlements, liability, and the costs of litigation. 106. The relationship between Old GP’s and Bestwall’s historical settlements in asbestos cases and Old GP’s and Bestwall’s liability under law. 107. The reasonable and necessary costs to Old GP and Bestwall of litigating mesothelioma claims to final judgment in state courts. 108. Differences between state procedure and the procedures under which asbestos claims would be litigated under Debtor’s plan of reorganization, and the impact on resolution costs and litigation costs. 109. Whether a mesothelioma plaintiff’s failure to disclose evidence of exposures from other asbestos-containing products affects a defendant’s costs to defend a case. 110. Whether a mesothelioma plaintiff’s failure to disclose evidence of exposures from other asbestos-containing products can materially affect a defendant’s substantial rights, including the defendant’s ability to fully and fairly present its defense. 111. Whether the number of asbestos-containing products to which a mesothelioma plaintiff was exposed and/or amount of such exposures affects a plaintiff’s likelihood of success against a single defendant. 112. Whether the number of asbestos-containing products to which a mesothelioma plaintiff was exposed and/or amount of such exposures affects the verdict amount against a defendant. 113. The extent to which past asbestos plaintiffs against Old GP and Bestwall failed to disclose evidence of exposures to asbestos, and the impact of any such practice on Old GP’s and Bestwall’s resolutions of asbestos cases. 114. Differences between financial reporting of expected expenditures and liability under law. 115. Amounts of Trust funding sufficient to pay current and future asbestos claimants against Bestwall in full and induce them to settle with the Trust. 116. Expenditures that would be required to satisfy asbestos claims under differing information regimes and cost structures. 117. The value of current and future mesothelioma claims against Bestwall based on alleged exposure to asbestos from Bestwall Joint Compound Products.

25

118. Appropriate discount and inflation rates for estimating the present value of current and future mesothelioma claims against Bestwall based on alleged exposure to asbestos from Bestwall Joint Compound Products. 119. Methods applicable to the construction of databases concerning asbestos claims and asbestos claimants. 120. Construction of the database relied upon to estimate Bestwall’s liability for current and future mesothelioma claims based on Bestwall Joint Compound Products. 121. The methodology and evidence for making the determinations about the subjects identified herein. 122. The education, training, experience, and qualifications necessary to become an expert in each area of testimony and the accepted methodology used in each area.

26

Dated: July 15, 2021 Respectfully submitted, Charlotte, North Carolina /s/ Garland S. Cassada Garland S. Cassada (NC Bar No. 12352) Richard C. Worf, Jr. (NC Bar No. 37143) ROBINSON, BRADSHAW & HINSON, P.A. 101 North Tryon Street, Suite 1900 Charlotte, North Carolina 28246 Telephone: (704) 377-2536 Facsimile: (704) 378-4000 E-mail: gcassada@robinsonbradshaw.com rworf@robinsonbradshaw.com Gregory M. Gordon (TX Bar No. 08435300) JONES DAY 2727 North Harwood Street, Suite 500 Dallas, Texas 75201 Telephone: (214) 220-3939 Facsimile: (214) 969-5100 E-mail: gmgordon@jonesday.com (Admitted pro hac vice) Jeffrey B. Ellman (GA Bar No. 141828) JONES DAY 1221 Peachtree Street, N.E., Suite 400 Atlanta, Georgia 30361 Telephone: (404) 581-3939 Facsimile: (404) 581-8330 E-mail: jbellman@jonesday.com (Admitted pro hac vice) Cary Ira Schachter (TX 17719900) Raymond P. Harris, Jr. (TX 09088050) Erin A. Therrian (TX 24072524) SCHACHTER HARRIS, LLP 909 Lake Carolyn Parkway, Suite 1775 Irving, Texas 75039 Telephone: (214) 999-5700 E-mail: cschachter@shtriallaw.com rharris@shtriallaw.com etherrian@shtriallaw.com (Admitted pro hac vice) ATTORNEYS FOR DEBTOR AND DEBTOR IN POSSESSION

27

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that the foregoing was served via electronic mail to the following: Mark P. Goodman, Esq. (mpgoodman@debevoise.com) and M. Natasha Labovitz, Esq. (nlabovitz@debevoise.com) Debevoise & Plimpton LLC 919 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Counsel for Georgia Pacific LLC Natalie Ramsey, Esq. (nramsey@rc.com) Davis Wright, Esq. (dwright@rc.com) Robinson & Cole LLP 1201 North Market Street, Suite 1406 Wilmington, DE 19801 Glenn Thompson, Esq. (gthompson@lawhssm.com) Hamilton Stephens Steele + Martin, PLLC 525 North Tryon Street, Suite 1400 Charlotte, NC 28202 Counsel for Official Committee of Asbestos Claimants Edwin J. Harron (eharron@ycst.com); Sharon M. Zieg (szieg@ycst.com) Rodney Square Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP 1000 North King Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Felton E. Parrish (felton.parrish@alexanderricks.com) Alexander Ricks PLLC 1420 E. 7th Street, Suite 100 Charlotte, NC 28204 Counsel for Future Claimants’ Representative This 15th day of July, 2021. /s/ Garland S. Cassada Garland S. Cassada

28

EXHIBIT B

29

IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA Charlotte Division IN RE: Case No. 10-BK-31607 GARLOCK SEALING TECHNOLOGIES LLC, et al., Chapter 11 Debtors.1 Jointly Administered DEBTORS’ PRELIMINARY DISCLOSURE OF EXPERT SUBJECTS AND FIELDS OF EXPERTISE FOR THEIR ESTIMATION CASE-IN-CHIEF Pursuant to the Order For Estimation of Mesothelioma Claims (Docket No. 2102) (the “Estimation Order”) and Estimation Case Management Order (Docket No. __), the Debtors hereby serve this preliminary disclosure of expert subjects and fields of expertise for their case-in-chief. This disclosure is preliminary and, because both fact and expert discovery are ongoing, may be supplemented in the future. Particular expert witnesses may be called to testify on multiple subjects within their fields of expertise. Specific references to expert witness subjects are not intended to narrow references to more general subjects, which should be given their broadest possible interpretation. Materials upon which experts will rely are not listed comprehensively below, and Debtors reserve the right for their experts to rely on any material. Subjects listed below may be duplicative of subjects Debtors offer in rebuttal of the cases presented by the Official Committee of Asbestos Personal Injury Claimants (“Committee”) and Future Claimants’ Representative (“FCR”). Debtors reserve all rights to designate areas of rebuttal testimony in response to expert subjects designated by the Committee and FCR, and to supplement this disclosure with additional expert testimony related to or in response to expert disclosures or reports offered by any other party. 1The Debtors in these jointly administered cases are Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC, Garrison Litigation Management Group, Ltd., and The Anchor Packing Company (collectively, the “Debtors”).

30

A. Expert Witness Subjects 1. The products Garlock has manufactured, distributed and sold. 2. The process involved in the manufacture of asbestos-containing and non-asbestos-containing Garlock products, including how the asbestos is encapsulated in gaskets and packing. 3. The different applications for Garlock’s asbestos and non-asbestos products. 4. Historical uses of both Garlock’s and other companies’ asbestos containing products and whether and why those products were necessary. 5. How Garlock’s and other companies’ asbestos containing products were applied, removed, and otherwise used in the workplace. 6. The asbestos fiber content and type in the various asbestos-containing products sold by Garlock. 7. Garlock’s customers that specified specific performance criteria and purchased Garlock’s asbestos-containing gaskets and packing, including the US Navy and major oil and chemical companies, and when and how those customers approved asbestos-free substitutes for steam and other applications. 8. Military and industry specifications for gaskets and packing and which Garlock products met those specifications. 9. When military specifications first approved non-asbestos compressed sheet gasket material and Garlock’s efforts to secure that approval. 10.Performance testing of Garlock’s products and the results of that testing. 11.Garlock’s efforts to develop asbestos-free substitutes, and its efforts to market those products. 12.The results of Garlock’s testing of potential exposure during the foreseeable use of its asbestos-containing products and how those results compared to the current and historical occupational exposure limits. 13.The phase-out of asbestos-containing products by the EPA in the late 1980s that included restricting the manufacture and sale of some asbestos-containing gaskets and whether the phase-out as applied to asbestos-containing gaskets ever became effective. 14.The nature of the asbestos textile manufacturing process, and how textile workers may have been exposed to asbestos historically. 15.Garlock efforts to communicate information about asbestos to the users of its products, including through caution labels and Material Data Safety Sheets. 16.Garlock’s sales and distribution networks. 17.The nature of asbestos minerals and non-fibrous varieties of minerals. 18.Differences between the fiber types, including how they differ in size, chemical composition, structure, resistance to various media, electrical charge, and functionality. 19.Historical uses of asbestos minerals. 20.The interaction of industrial hygiene and the use of asbestos and asbestos-containing products in workplaces in the United States.

31

21.The development of the knowledge of the hazards and risk associated with asbestos minerals and the use of asbestos products over time from an industrial hygiene point of view. 22.Whether Garlock’s and other companies’ conduct was consistent with their knowledge or the state of the art. 23.The role of industrial hygiene in protecting the health and safety of workers in the workplace. 24.The education, training, experience, and qualifications necessary to become a competent industrial hygienist, and the tools of industrial hygiene. 25.Current and historical information regarding air and dust sampling methods for asbestos in occupational settings, including the proper use and application of the current and historical accepted methods for assessing the presence and airborne concentration of asbestos minerals, such as the NIOSH 7400 and 7402 methods, the OSHA reference method, and the EPA, AHERA, and ASTM methods. 26.Current and historical occupational exposure limits specified or recommended by governments and public health organizations and agencies and their supporting data and analysis. 27.Government regulations regarding asbestos minerals and asbestos containing products, including the bans on certain asbestos-containing products and restrictions on the use and handling of asbestos-containing products. 28.Whether individual asbestos-containing products used in the United States are friable or non-friable as those terms are defined by the US EPA. 29.Historical use conditions and controls established over time, including regulatory requirements and industry practices. 30.Asbestos-containing products generally, including their asbestos fiber content, manufacture, and use. 31.The content and fiber type of the asbestos-containing products to which typical claimants came in contact, including the asbestiform amphibole content of Garlock’s products made with commercial chrysotile. 32.How to determine which industrial hygiene studies are reliable and which are not. 33.The reliable industrial hygiene studies reporting the exposures associated with the foreseeable work with Garlock’s and other manufacturers’ products and the reasons why other studies are not reliable. 34.The warning or caution label requirement of OSHA or other public health or government agencies, and whether Garlock products were subject to those requirements. 35.Whether foreseeable work with and around Garlock’s products increased a worker’s risk of asbestos-related disease from an industrial hygiene point of view. 36.Whether work with other products to which the claimants may have been exposed exceeds the OSHA or other public health agencies’ permissible limits.

32

37.The range of exposures associated with the foreseeable work with asbestos-containing products used historically in the United States. 38.The potential for bystander exposure from the foreseeable work with the different types of asbestos-containing products. 39.The re-entrainment of asbestos mineral fibers. 40.Why OSHA and other organizations do not regulate or recommend difference exposure limits based on fiber type. 41.Whether the use of settled dust methods or Tyndall or high intensity light methods provide a proper scientific basis for assessing occupational risk from asbestos exposure. 42.Whether respirable asbestos fibers can be identified while viewing videos of work activities recorded during the use of so-called Tyndall lighting. 43.How the occupation and industry coding system of the Personal Injury Questionnaire (“PIQ”) may be used to divide claimants into groups of claimants with jobs likely to result in similar frequency and proximity of contact with Garlock products in the workplace. 44.The estimated range of the cumulative asbestos exposure from work with or around Garlock’s products for workers in the occupations and industries identified in the PIQ. 45.The estimated range of the cumulative asbestos exposure from work with or around products other than those sold by Garlock for workers in the occupations and industries identified in the PIQ, including the workers’ cumulative exposure from products made with amphiboles. 46.The methods for hazard, exposure, dose-response, and risk assessments. 47.Hazard, exposure, dose-response, and risk assessments of the foreseeable use of asbestos-containing products with which typical claimants would come in contact, including Garlock’s products or type of products and the products or type of products manufactured, distributed, or sold by other companies. 48.The measured background asbestos levels, and sources of asbestos, in the general environment (i.e. ambient air), the workplace environment, and drinking water, and the studies quantifying those levels. 49.General medicine issues regarding asbestos-related diseases including, but not limited to, lung physiology, lung function, the body’s defense mechanisms, and the mechanisms by which asbestos fibers do or do not cause a particular disease. 50.The asbestos-related diseases and conditions. 51.How asbestos-related disease occurs. 52.The dose-response relationship for development of asbestos related disease and the significance of dose in causation of an asbestos related disease. 53.How mesothelioma and the other asbestos-related diseases or conditions are diagnosed. 54.The differences between diffuse malignant mesothelioma and conditions for which the nomenclature may include “mesothelioma.” 55.The latency period associated with each type of asbestos-related disease.

33

56.How fiber tissue burden analysis is conducted and what it can demonstrate about past exposures. 57.The various kinds of evidence upon which medical and epidemiological science make causation determinations, the proper role of each, and the role each plays in asbestos research. 58.The methods for determining causality. 59.How epidemiology discusses disease, including the concepts of statistical significance, relative risk, confidence levels, and confounding. 60.The epidemiology of the asbestos-related diseases, including the relative potency of the different fiber types to cause disease, the cumulative exposure of asbestos by fiber type associated with disease, and the incidence of mesothelioma, past, present, and future. 61.The relative risks of asbestos disease in various occupations and industries. 62.How one’s cumulative exposure is produced by various exposures accumulating over time and how the cumulative exposure is measured in fiber/cc-years, i.e., the product of the eight-hour time-weighted average exposure (f/cc) over time (years). 63.Whether there are threshold levels of exposure necessary before asbestos diseases will develop. 64.The cumulative exposure at which the various asbestos minerals have been shown to have a statistically significant increased risk associated with mesothelioma. 65.Whether exposure to chrysotile fibers causes mesothelioma. 66.Whether low-dose exposure to chrysotile causes mesothelioma. 67.The differences in causation of pleural and peritoneal mesothelioma. 68.Causes of mesothelioma other than asbestos. 69.The incidence of mesothelioma not caused by asbestos exposure. 70.Whether ambient or background exposure and background levels of asbestos fibers in human tissue present a risk of disease. 71.The health consequences of smoking and the relationship between smoking and asbestos-related diseases. 72.Whether every exposure to asbestos or every exposure above background exposure increases one’s risk of developing any asbestos-related disease. 73.The mandates and goals of governmental and public health agencies and organizations regarding the public’s health and the context of statements made regarding asbestos. 74.The proper use of extrapolation and the linear dose response model. 75.The significance of commercial chrysotile end products potentially containing trace levels of amphiboles. 76.The significance of fiber burden analyses of lung tissue and the range of lung burdens associated with various occupations and industries.

34

77.Whether any asbestos-related disease suffered by typical claimants could have been caused by exposure to asbestos-containing products made or sold by Garlock. 78.Whether the foreseeable handling, installation, removal, or contact, if any, with Garlock’s products by typical claimants would be a substantial factor or producing cause of the typical claimant’s asbestos-related disease. 79.Whether historical work procedures with respect to thermal and other insulation products were unreasonably dangerous. 80.For the occupations and industries of typical current and future claimants, the cause of the mesothelioma of typical claimants, the correlation between the cumulative lifetime asbestos exposure from Garlock products to the levels proven to cause disease, and the relative contribution to total asbestos exposure by Garlock products. 81.Whether, in the context of the total exposures typical to the groups identified by industrial hygiene testimony, any exposure from Garlock’s products was a substantial cause of mesothelioma. 82.Applicable law and procedure concerning causation and other scientific topics in mesothelioma claims against Garlock. 83.The number of current and future mesothelioma claims against the Debtors. 84.The projected current and future incidence of mesothelioma. 85.The projected number of current and future mesothelioma claims against the Debtors. 86.The demographic, occupational, and other relevant characteristics of persons who have been or will be diagnosed with mesothelioma and have asserted or will assert claims against the Debtors. 87.The number of projected mesothelioma claims against the Debtors by exposure groups, including the number of estimated current and future claimants in each exposure group. 88.Likelihood of recovery for claimants, if any, whose claims reach trial and the factors which impact the likelihood. 89.The number of claimants who are able, and will be able in the future, to identify contact with a product for which Debtors may be responsible, and the nature of such contact. 90.Methods by which products to which claimants were exposed or with which they came into contact are identified by claimants and defendants. 91.Significance of Garlock’s past trial verdicts for estimating likelihood of recovery. 92.Impact on the likelihood of recovery of differences between state procedure and the procedures under which asbestos claims would be litigated under Debtors’ plan of reorganization.

35

93.The aggregate total damages expected to be awarded to holders of mesothelioma claims who are able to obtain a judgment, from all potential defendants without taking into account set-off, credit, and apportionment. 94.The aggregate total damages expected to be awarded to claimants typical to the exposure groups who are able to obtain a judgment, from all potential defendants without taking into account set-off, credit, and apportionment. 95.Applicable law concerning the recovery a claimant may collect from a particular defendant, including Debtors. 96.The projected aggregate amounts that holders of mesothelioma claims will recover from other sources, including bankruptcy trusts and other defendants that are not in bankruptcy. 97.The projected aggregate value of Debtors’ set-off and contribution rights under applicable law, particularly after taking into account the emergence of bankruptcy trusts from the chapter 11 cases of top tier defendants (including W.R. Grace; Pittsburgh Corning; United States Gypsum Company; Babcock & Wilcox; Owens Corning; Federal Mogul; etc.) that will process and pay such clams. 98.The effect of Debtors’ apportionment rights, in states following some version of several liability, on the amount of judgments claimants could obtain against Debtors. 99.Trends and developments in the law concerning allocation of damages to particular defendants, as well as contribution, set-off, apportionment, and similar topics. 100.Trends and developments in the law governing liability in asbestos cases, including the law of causation. 101.Estimated predicted share of liability attributable to Garlock for claimants typical to the exposure groups. 102.Claimants’ response to the PIQ and any supplemental questionnaires, and conclusions to be drawn therefrom in all relevant subject matter areas listed herein. 103.Materials from bankruptcy cases, including ballots and 2019 statements, and conclusions to be drawn therefrom in all relevant subject matter areas listed herein. 104.The history of asbestos litigation against Garlock and other asbestos defendants, including: a. The nature of asbestos litigation since the 1970s. b. The organization and history of the asbestos plaintiffs’ bar. c. Fraud in asbestos litigation. d. Garlock’s position in asbestos litigation before the Bankruptcy Wave beginning in 2000. e. Garlock’s position in asbestos litigation after the Bankruptcy Wave.

36

f. Garlock’s historical costs for resolving and litigating asbestos claims. g. The history of non-malignant claiming. h. The generation of fraudulent asbestos claims based on unreliable and fraudulent medical and exposure evidence, and the effect on Garlock and other defendants. i. Techniques practiced by asbestos plaintiffs’ law firms for generating product identification evidence against Garlock and other defendants in asbestos cases. j. The development of unreliable, misleading, and false evidence against Garlock after the Bankruptcy Wave. k. Changes in testimony in Garlock cases after the Bankruptcy Wave, including trends in the identification of products for which bankrupts were responsible, and the practices of asbestos plaintiffs’ law firms in this regard. l. Inaccurate and misleading testimony given by expert witnesses testifying for plaintiffs in prior asbestos personal injury cases. m. The corruption of the scientific literature by plaintiffs’ lawyers and their affiliates. n. The impact of omission and concealment of exposure evidence on Garlock’s settlements after the Bankruptcy Wave. o. The history of asbestos bankruptcies, including the impact of the bankruptcies on tort litigation and the establishment, funding, and operation of Trusts and the evolution of trust distribution procedures. p. The nature of Trusts, including their procedures and payments. q. Fraud and abuse in connection with Trusts and asbestos litigation against Garlock and other defendants. r. Legislative developments concerning Trusts in Congress and state legislatures. s. Procedures for administering asbestos cases, and changes in such procedures, including procedures relating to Trusts. t. Trends in the total compensation received by asbestos claimants from all sources over time, and the sources of that compensation. u. Trends in filings of asbestos claims against Garlock and other defendants. v. Trends in Trust claiming practices of asbestos claimants, including the timing of Trust claims. w. Verdicts for and against Garlock in asbestos cases. x. Ethical rules for attorneys and their application in asbestos litigation. y. Trends in the total compensation received by lawyers representing asbestos claimants over time, and the sources of that compensation. z. Trends in the cost to Garlock of litigating mesothelioma claims.

37

105.General economic models of litigation, including models of incentives to litigate or settle cases, and conclusions to be drawn from historical verdicts in asbestos cases. The application of such models to Garlock’s history of asbestos litigation. 106.The economic impact of litigation costs on asbestos litigation against Garlock and other defendants. 107.The reasonable and necessary costs to Garlock of litigating mesothelioma claims to final judgment in state court. 108.Differences between state procedure and the procedures under which asbestos claims would be litigated under Debtors’ plan of reorganization, and the impact on resolution costs and litigation costs.

38

B. Fields of Expertise: 1. Industrial hygiene 2. Pulmonology 3. Epidemiology 4. Toxicology 5. Pathology 6. Mineralogy 7. Econometrics 8. Statistics 9. Law, asbestos litigation, and the history of asbestos litigation against Debtors and other companies 10.Electrical Engineering/Physics 11.Public Health 12.Psychology 13.The manufacture of Garlock’s products and other companies’ asbestos-containing products 14.The marketing of Garlock’s products and other companies’ asbestos-containing products 15.The historical use of Garlock’s products and other companies’ asbestos-containing products

39

This 22nd day of June, 2012. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Garland S. Cassada__________ Garland S. Cassada N.C. Bar No. 12352 Jonathan C. Krisko N.C. Bar No. 28625 Richard C. Worf, Jr. N.C. Bar No. 37143 ROBINSON BRADSHAW & HINSON, P.A. 101 North Tryon Street, Suite 1900 Charlotte, North Carolina 28246 Telephone: (704) 377-2536 Facsimile: (704) 378-4000 gcassada@rbh.com jkrisko@rbh.com rworf@rbh.com Special Corporate and Litigation Counsel to the Debtors Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC, Garrison Litigation Management Group, Ltd., and The Anchor Packing Company Cary Schachter Raymond P. Harris, Jr. SCHACHTER HARRIS, LLP 600 North Pearl, Suite 2300 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (214) 999-5700 Facsimile: (214) 999-5747 cschachter@schachterharris.com rharris@schachterharris.com Special Litigation Counsel to the Debtors Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC, Garrison Litigation Management Group, Ltd., and The Anchor Packing Company

40

EXHIBIT C

41

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA Charlotte Division ) In Re: ) Chapter 11 ) GARLOCK SEALING TECHNOLOGIES ) Case No. 10-31607 LLC, et al., ) ) Debtors.' ) Jointly Administered ) PRELIMINARY DISCLOSURES OF THE OFFICIAL COMMITTEE OF ASBESTOS PERSONAL INJURY CLAIMANTS PERTAINING TO REBUTTAL EXPERT TESTIMONY The Official Committee of Asbestos Personal Injury Claimants (the "Committee"), makes the following preliminary disclosure with respect to rebuttal expert testimony. Preliminary Statement and Reservation of Rights 1. The Committee hereby sets forth its preliminary disclosures concerning its anticipated expert rebuttal case, including any surrebuttal. To ensure direct responsiveness to the Debtors' preliminary expert disclosures for their case in chief, the Committee here adopts the format used by the Debtors for those preliminary disclosures. The Committee also incorporates by reference its own previously served preliminary case-in-chief disclosures concerning expert subjects and fields of expertise. 2. These disclosures are preliminary only. The Committee expressly reserves the right to designate in due course testifying experts for subjects and fields of expertise that are not listed herein because the ACC has not yet anticipated that its rebuttal case will include testimony 1 The Debtors in these jointly administered cases are Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC, Garrison Litigation Management Group, Ltd., and The Anchor Packing Company.

42

about those subjects or drawn from those fields. The Committee also reserves the right to rely on the opinions of any rebuttal expert designated by the Future Claimants' Representative. 3. The Debtors have included in their preliminary case-in-chief disclosures subjects that may not be proper subjects of expert testimony or that may exceed the proper scope of the estimation trial. Such topics include, inter alia, the law, factual matters for which the testimony of experts may not be legitimate or helpful to the Court, and subjects not relevant to aggregate estimation of mesothelioma claims. The Committee fully reserves its rights to seek the exclusion of expert testimony on these grounds or any other basis. Rebuttal topics and fields of expertise in these disclosures are made subject to this reservation and without prejudice to the Committee's right to argue that improper expert testimony should not be permitted. Subjects Subject to the foregoing Preliminary Statement and Reservation of Rights, the Committee may present rebuttal testimony through experts as to (1) each topic described generally below, (2) each subject the Debtors address through expert testimony in the Debtors' case in chief, and (3) each subject the Debtors or Coltec Industries, Inc. ("Coltec") address through expert testimony in their rebuttal of the Committee's case in chief. 2 Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the subjects of rebuttal testimony by the Committee's experts include each of the following: 1. The products the Debtors have manufactured distributed and sold. 2 Coltec has served preliminary disclosures regarding subjects of testimony and fields of expertise for rebuttal experts. Coltec, however, has made no disclosures regarding expert testimony or fields for a case in chief. The ACC's expert rebuttal disclosures therefore assume that, if Coltec puts on any case in chief, it will be limited to fact witnesses.

43

2. The release of respirable asbestos fibers in substantial amounts when gaskets and packing are fabricated or manipulated during installation in the field, or when gaskets or packing are removed from equipment for replacement. 3. The different applications for the Debtors' asbestos and non-asbestos products. 4. Historical uses of both the Debtors' and other companies' asbestos-containing products and whether asbestos-free substitutes existed. 5. How the Debtors' and other companies' asbestos-containing products were applied, removed, and otherwise used in the workplace. 6. The asbestos fiber content and type in the various asbestos-containing products sold by the Debtors and by others, including the amphibole content of the Debtors' products made principally with chrysotile and those made principally with amphiboles. 7. The Debtors' and other manufacturers' or entities' testing or failure to test asbestos fiber emissions from gaskets and packing during foreseeable uses of such products, the reliability or unreliability of those tests, and how test results compared to the current and historical occupational exposure limits. 8. The phase-out of asbestos-containing products by the EPA in the late 1980s and the degree to which that phase-out applied to asbestos-containing gaskets and packing. 9. The nature of the asbestos textile manufacturing process, and how textile workers may have been exposed to asbestos historically; the extent to which published discussions about the hazards of asbestos in the textile industry or about the need to warn of such hazards referred to or implicated hazards from asbestos-containing gaskets and packing and the need to warn of those of hazards. 10. The Debtors' Material Data Safety Sheets for relevant products.

44

11. The nature of asbestos minerals and non-fibrous varieties of minerals. 12. How asbestos fiber types differ in size, chemical composition, structure, resistance to various media, electrical charge, and functionality; whether all commercial asbestos fiber types have been demonstrated to cause mesothelioma, lung cancer, and asbestosis in humans; whether all commercial asbestos fiber types have been recognized as potent for carcinogenicity; and whether it is possible reliably or scientifically to quantify alleged differences in mesothelioma potency between asbestos fiber types and lengths. 13. The interaction of industrial hygiene and the use of asbestos and asbestos-containing products in workplaces in the United States. 14. The development of the knowledge of the hazards and risks associated with asbestos minerals and the uses of asbestos products over time from an industrial hygiene point of view. 15. The Debtors' and other companies' knowledge of the hazards of asbestos and of their conduct. 16. The role of industrial hygiene in protecting the health and safety of workers in the workplace. 17. The education, training, experience, and qualifications necessary to become a competent industrial hygienist, and the tools of industrial hygiene. 18. Current and historical information regarding air and dust sampling methods for asbestos in occupational settings, including the proper use and application of the current and historical accepted methods for assessing the presence and airborne concentration of asbestos minerals, such as the NIOSH 7400 and 7402 methods, the OSHA reference method, and the EPA, AHERA, and ASTM methods.

45

19. Current and historical occupational exposure limits specified or recommended by governments and public health organizations and agencies and their supporting data and analysis; the fact that TLV/PEL were designed to minimize the risk of asbestosis, and that neither any historical PEL nor the current PEL would protect workers from a significant risk of cancer. 20. Government regulations regarding asbestos minerals and asbestos containing products, including the bans on certain asbestos-containing products and restrictions on the use and handling of asbestos-containing products. 21. Whether individual asbestos-containing products used in the United States are friable or non-friable as those terms are defined by the United States EPA; the meaning of "friability" and whether products that are not "friable" can release substantial amounts of asbestos fibers; factors affecting the degree of fiber release. 22. Historical use conditions and controls established over time with regard to asbestos and asbestos-containing products, including regulatory requirements and industry practices. 23. How to evaluate industrial hygiene and material science studies, as well as the historical studies done outside of the litigation context by industry and government groups. 24. The industrial hygiene studies reporting fiber exposures associated with the foreseeable work with the Debtors' and other manufacturers' products. 25. The warning or caution label requirements promulgated by OSHA or other public health or governmental agencies, and whether the Debtors' products were subject to those requirements.

46

26. Levels of asbestos fiber release associated with foreseeable work with and around the Debtors' products and how this increased a worker's risk of asbestos-related disease, depending on the facts and circumstances of each individual case. 27. Levels of asbestos fiber release associated with asbestos-containing products other than gaskets and packing. 28. The range of exposures associated with foreseeable work with asbestos-containing products used historically in the United States. 29. The potential for bystander exposure from foreseeable work with the different types of asbestos-containing products. 30. The re-entrainment of asbestos mineral fibers. 31. Whether the EPA, OSHA, and other organizations regulate or recommend different exposure limits based on fiber type; whether the data needed to determine potency by fiber type on a fiber-by-fiber basis exists. 32. The use of settled dust methods or Tyndall or high intensity light methods and why such use is appropriate and necessary in evaluating asbestos fiber exposure from work with asbestos products. 33. The purpose of viewing videos of work activities recorded during the use of Tyndall lighting. 34. The design and administration of the Debtors' Mesothelioma Claim Questionnaire and supplemental questionnaires. 35. The Debtors' uses of their Mesothelioma Claim Questionnaire and supplemental questionnaires in the aggregate estimation and whether those uses are sound or legitimate.

47

36. The industrial/occupational groupings created by the Debtors or their experts for the estimation, and whether those groupings are sound and appropriate. 37. The measured background asbestos levels, and sources of asbestos, in the general environment or ambient air as reported in various studies and publications. 38. General medical issues regarding asbestos-related diseases and conditions including, but not limited, to how those diseases and conditions occur, lung physiology, lung function, the body's defense mechanisms, and the mechanisms by which asbestos fibers may cause particular diseases. 39. The dose-response relationship for development of asbestos-related disease and the significance of dose in causation of an asbestos-related disease. 40. How mesothelioma and other asbestos-related diseases or conditions are diagnosed. 41. The differences between diffuse malignant mesothelioma and other conditions. 42. The latency period associated with each type of asbestos-related disease. 43. How fiber tissue burden analysis is conducted, the limits of its utility, and its inability to rule out chrysotile exposure as a cause of mesothelioma in individual cases. 44. The various kinds of evidence upon which medical and epidemiological science make causation determinations, the proper role of each, and the role each plays in asbestos research. 45. The methods for determining causality, including generally accepted criteria for determining the causation of asbestos-related diseases. 46. The uses and limitations of epidemiology in determining the cause of a disease and in detecting risk in a rare disease.

48

47. The epidemiology of asbestos-related diseases, the cumulative exposure of asbestos by fiber type associated with disease, and the incidence of mesothelioma, past, present, and future. 48. The relative risks of asbestos disease in various occupations and industries. 49. The nature, effects, and significance of cumulative asbestos exposures over time, and whether it is possible to measure or reliably estimate total asbestos exposure by quantitative methods. 50. Whether any safe threshold for asbestos exposure for the development of mesothelioma has ever been determined; the nature of mesothelioma as a "signature" or "sentinel" disease indicative of asbestos exposure; the results of case-control studies and matters observed in case series and case reports, involving low exposures and exposures of short duration, and the significance of such sources for understanding the dangers of asbestos and the causation of mesothelioma. 51. Whether exposure to chrysotile fibers causes mesothelioma. 52. Whether "low-dose" exposure to chrysotile causes mesothelioma. 53. The causation of pleural and peritoneal mesothelioma. 54. The generally accepted causes of mesothelioma in humans according to IARC 2012: exposure to asbestos, exposure to erionite (a fiber found only in Turkey), and substantial doses of Thorotrast. 55. Whether there is any incidence of mesothelioma not caused by asbestos exposure in the United States.

49

56. The degree to which ambient or background exposure and background levels of asbestos fibers contribute to disease causation, and the difficulties of making such a determination. 57. The health consequences of smoking and the relationship between smoking and asbestos related diseases, including the fact that smoking plays no role in causing mesothelioma. 58. The nature of mesothelioma as a cumulative-exposure disease and, in general, how any occupational exposure to asbestos plays a role in causing mesothelioma in a person who develops that disease; the importance of the facts and circumstances of the individual case in determining whether any given exposure to asbestos within an individual's total asbestos exposure increases his or her risk of developing any asbestos-related disease or is a substantial factor in causing the disease. 59. The mandates of scientific agencies such as IARC, the Surgeon General, and the NCI, and the processes they follow before determining that a substance is carcinogenic. 60. The linear dose response model as a basic principle of both toxicology and cancer causation with respect to substances that are genotoxic. 61. The significance of commercial chrysotile end-products containing measurable and dangerous levels of tremolite. 62. The significance of fiber burden analyses of lung tissue and the range of lung burdens associated with various occupations and industries. 63. Whether any asbestos-related disease suffered by an individual who is exposed at occupational levels to asbestos from the Debtors' products could have been caused by exposure to asbestos-containing products made or sold by the Debtors.

50

64. Whether the foreseeable handling, installation, removal, or contact with the Debtors' products would be a substantial factor or producing cause of an individual's asbestos-related disease, depending on the hypothetical facts. 65. Whether historical work procedures with respect to various asbestos-containing products, including gaskets and packing, were dangerous. 66. The Debtors' assertions about the cumulative lifetime asbestos exposure from the Debtors' products or other asbestos products, including general and specific methodological flaws in such assertions. 67. How any exposure from the Debtors' products can be a substantial contributing factor in the causation of mesothelioma. 68. The projected current and future incidence of mesothelioma. 69. The projected number of current and future mesothelioma claims against the Debtors. 70. The demographic, occupational, and other relevant characteristics of persons who have been or will be diagnosed with mesothelioma and have asserted or will assert claims against the Debtors. 71. The Debtors' assertions as to the number of projected mesothelioma claims against in exposure groups posited by the Debtors, including the number of estimated current and future claimants in each exposure group. 72. The Debtors' assertions as to the number of present and future claims that would be dismissed without payment. 73. The Debtors' assertions regarding the likelihood of recovery for claimants, if any, who the Debtors forecast would reach trial and the factors affecting that likelihood.

51

74. The Debtors' assertions as to the number of claimants who are able, and will be able in the future, to identify contact with a product for which Debtors may be responsible, and the nature of such contacts. 75. Whether the Debtors' Mesothelioma Claim Questionnaire or supplemental questionnaires provide a proper basis for forecasting the dismissal of any mesothelioma claims without payment or the results of trying any such claims. 76. The Debtors' assertions about the damages forecasted to be awarded to prevailing mesothelioma claimants at trial. 77. The Debtors' assertions about their claimed entitlement to credits and offsets against damages awarded to prevailing mesothelioma claimants at trial, and about the bases and amounts of any such credits and offsets. 78. Methods by which products that claimants have been exposed to are identified by claimants and defendants. 79. Significance of the Debtors' past trial verdicts for estimating likelihood and amount of recoveries. 80. The Debtors' or Coltec's assertions about supposed differences between state procedure and the procedures under which asbestos claims would be litigated under the Debtors' plan of reorganization; the factual and legal premises of their analyses based upon such supposed differences; and the impact of such supposed differences on mesothelioma claimants' prospects for withstanding legal challenges to their claims or prevailing at trial, and on the forecasted amounts of their recoveries.

52

81. Whether the aggregate total damages expected to be awarded to holders of mesothelioma claims who are able to obtain a judgment can be reliably estimated by the Debtors' method. 82. Whether the aggregate total damages expected to be awarded at trial to prevailing claimants supposed to be typical of the Debtors' posited industrial/occupational exposure groups can be reliably estimated by the Debtors' method. 83. The Debtors' assertions concerning applicable law as to the damages collectible from a particular defendant, including themselves; the impact of varying legal regimes for the allocation of liability among joint or concurrent tortfeasors. 84. The Debtors' assertions as to whether the aggregate amounts that holders of mesothelioma claims will recover from other sources, including bankruptcy trusts and nonbankrupt defendants, can be reliably estimated by the Debtors' method. 85. The Debtors' assertions as to the impact and projected aggregate value of their supposed set-off and contribution rights under applicable law. 86. The Debtors' assertions as to the effect of their supposed apportionment rights, in states following some version of several liability, on the amount of judgments claimants could obtain against the Debtors. 87. The Debtors' assertions as to trends and developments in the law concerning allocation of damages to particular defendants, as well as contribution, set-off, apportionment, and similar topics. 88. The Debtors' assertions as to trends and developments in the law governing liability in asbestos cases, including the law of causation.

53

89. The Debtors' assertions as to whether any predicted share of liability attributable to them for claimants typical of the exposure groups posited by the Debtors can be reliably calculated by their method, or as to the limitations of any such share. 90. Claimants' responses to the Questionnaires and any supplemental questionnaires, and whether and what conclusions may be drawn therefrom with respect to any relevant subject. 91. Materials from other bankruptcy cases, including ballots and 2019 statements, and whether and what conclusions may be drawn therefrom with respect to any relevant subject. 92. Information produced by trusts, and whether and what conclusions may be drawn therefrom with respect to any relevant subject. 93. The history of asbestos litigation against the Debtors and other asbestos defendants, including: a. The nature of asbestos litigation since the 1970s. b. The Debtors' position in asbestos litigation before 2000. c. The Debtors' position in asbestos litigation after 2000. d. The Debtors' historical costs for resolving and litigating asbestos claims. e. The history of non-malignant claiming. f. Recent litigation-driven allegations of fraudulent asbestos claims based on allegedly "unreliable," "misleading," and "fraudulent" medical and exposure evidence. g. Techniques used by plaintiffs and defendants for generating product identification evidence against the Debtors and other defendants in asbestos cases. h. The corruption of the scientific literature by asbestos defendants and their affiliates and proxies; rebuttal of the Debtors' assertions about supposed

54

corruption of scientific literature by plaintiffs' lawyers and their supposed affiliates. The history of asbestos bankruptcies, including the impact of the bankruptcies on tort litigation and the establishment, funding, and operation of asbestos bankruptcy trusts and the evolution of trust distribution procedures. j. The nature of asbestos bankruptcy trusts, including their procedures and payments. k. The Debtors' historical conduct in regard to attempts to attribute asbestos liability to other defendants, including by way of joinder, verdict sheets, settlement credits, contribution or indemnity claims, or indirect trust claims. 1. Litigation-driven allegations of fraud and abuse in connection with asbestos trusts and asbestos litigation against Garlock and other defendants. m. Legislative developments concerning asbestos bankruptcy trusts in Congress and state legislatures, including legislative efforts sponsored by the Debtors, other asbestos defendants, and their proxies. n. Procedures for litigating asbestos personal injury cases in state and federal courts, and changes in such procedures, including procedures relating to asbestos trusts. o. Considerations, factors, and strategies in prosecuting and defending, valuing and resolving asbestos personal injury cases in the tort system; information available to the Debtors about other sources of claimants' asbestos exposures, and other sources of compensation, including trusts. p. Whether the data available can reveal trends in the total compensation received by asbestos claimants from all sources over time.

55

q. Trends in filings of asbestos claims against the Debtors and other defendants. r. How asbestos claimants file claims with asbestos bankruptcy trusts, including the timing of asbestos trust claims. s. Verdicts for and against the Debtors in asbestos cases. t. Ethical rules for attorneys and their application in asbestos litigation. u. Trends in the total compensation received by lawyers representing asbestos claimants or defendants over time, and the sources of that compensation. v. Trends in the costs of litigating mesothelioma claims. 94. General economic models of litigation, including models of incentives to litigate or settle cases, and conclusions to be drawn from historical verdicts in asbestos cases, and the application of such models to the Debtors' history of asbestos litigation. 95. The economic impact of litigation costs on asbestos litigation against the Debtors and other defendants. 96. Costs of litigating mesothelioma claims to final judgment. 97. Differences between state and federal procedures and the procedures under which asbestos claims would be litigated under Debtors' plan of reorganization, whether such procedures would have an impact on "legal liability," resolution costs, litigation costs, or settlement, and other consequences of the Debtors' proposal. 98. Differences between the "Settlement Option" described in the Debtors' plan of reorganization and the Debtors' historical settlement practices in the tort system; the Debtors' assertions concerning the numbers of claimants who would elect that option. 99. The validity of statistical calculations, methods and conclusions in the Debtors' estimation approach.

56

100. Practical, academic, scientific and ethical issues arising from the sponsorship of scientific research, studies, and literature by entities involved in litigation. 101. Any other subject that the Debtors' experts are permitted to address in the Debtors' case-in-chief or that the Debtors' or Coltec's experts are permitted to address in their rebuttal of the Committee's or the FCR's cases-in-chief Fields of Expertise Subject to the foregoing Preliminary Statement and Reservation of Rights, the Committee anticipates that its rebuttal experts will be qualified in each field of expertise necessary to respond to expert testimony introduced in the Debtors' case in chief or in the Debtors' or Coltec's rebuttal of the Committee's or the FCR's cases in chief. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, it is anticipated that the fields of expertise of the expert witnesses to be designated by the Committee will include each of the following: 1. Industrial hygiene 2. Pulmonology 3. Cell biology 4. Epidemiology 5. Toxicology 6. Pathology 7. Mineralogy 8. Environmental Science 9. Materials Science 10. Econometrics 11. Microeconomics 12. Statistics

57

13. Asbestos litigation, law, procedure and practice, economic incentives, claiming behavior, and resolution practices 14. Forecasting and valuation methodology 15. History of the uses of asbestos, knowledge of dangers, warnings, and regulations 16. History of asbestos litigation against the Debtors and other companies 17. Public Health 18. Psychology 19. Any other field necessary or appropriate for responding to the Debtors' or Coltec's experts Dated: July 13, 2012 Respectfully submitted, CAPLIN & DRYSDALE, CHARTERED Is/Trevor W Swett III Trevor W. Swett III tswett@capdale.com James P. Wehner jwehner@capdale.com Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered One Thomas Circle, NW Washington, DC 20005 (202) 862-5000 Elihu Inselbuch einselbuch@capdale.com 375 Park Avenue, 35th Floor New York, NY 10152-3500 (212) 319-7125 Co-Counsel for the cial Committee ofAs bestos Personal Injury Claimants

58

Travis W. Moon MOON WRIGHT & HOUSTON, PLLC tmoon@mwhattorneys.com 227 West Trade Street Suite 1800 Charlotte, NC 28202 (704) 994-6560 Co-Counsel for the Official Committee ofAs bestos Personal Injury Claimants

59

EXHIBIT D

60

JOHN W. ARNOLD L• MEL a BAILEY KUG L P• DAVID W. CROWE WILLIAM A FYNES WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL: JAMES B. GREER (214) 231-0543 TROY C. MELLING ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS BRENT M. KAFIREN 6550 BANK OF AMERICA PLAZA LAURA E. KUGLER WRITER'S E-MAIL ADDRESS: D.G. MAJORS 901 MAIN STREET Ikuglera bcklaw.com TODD H. RAMSEY DALLAS, TEXAS 75202-3736 D. JUSTIN WALLACE (800) 738-4045 (214) 231-0555 FACSIMILE (214) 231-0556 October 14, 2005 Cynthia Can Case Intake Area Harris County Courthouse 105 C ivil Courts Boulevard 301 Fannin Street Houston, Texas 77002 Re: Cause No. 2004-03964 In Re: Asbestos Litigation th 11 Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas Dear Clerk: Enclosed please find the original and one copy of Defendant Georgia-Pacific Corporation's First Supplemental Objections and Responses to Master Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents regarding the above-styled and numbered cause of action. Please file the original among the papers of this cause and return the file marked copy to my office in the enclosed stamped self addressed envelope. Your assistance in this regard is greatly appreciated. Very truly yours, J Laura Ellis Kugler LEK/kt Enclosure cc: Via LexisNexis All Known Counsel of Record

61

MASTER DISCOVERY CAUSE NO. 2004-03964 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF IN RE: ASBESTOS LITIGATION HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS 11Th JUDICIAL DISTRICT DEFENDANT GEORGIA-PACIFIC CORPORATION'S FIRST SUPPLEMETNAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO MASTER INTERROGATORORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS Pursuant to the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendant Georgia-Pacific Corporation ("Georgia-Pacific") files this its First Supplemental Objections and Responses to Master Set of Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents as follows. INTERROGATORY NO. 10: Please identify each asbestos-containing product that Defendant mined, manufactured, marketed, produced, researched, sold, distributed, or patented at any time. For each product identified, please provide the following information: a. the trade name or brand name of the product mined, manufactured, marketed, produced, researched, sold, distributed, and/or patented; b. the date the product was patented (if patented), placed on the market (if marketed), and the inclusive dates of the product's manufacture or sale (if manufactured or sold); c. the physical and chemical composition of the product, including the type of asbestos contained in the product and the percentage or amount of asbestos in each product; d. the date Defendant stopped mining, manufacturing, marketing, producing, researching, selling, and/or distributing the product; e. the date the product was removed from the market (if marketed) and no longer sold or distributed and the reasons therefore; f. the date asbestos was removed from the product, if ever, and the reasons for removing it; g. the seller(s), distributor(s) and/or supplier(s) from whom Defendant purchased the asbestos used in each particular product, and the type (example: amosite, chrysotile) and quantity of asbestos Defendant purchased from the seller(s); h. whether Defendant ever conducted any testing on the product to determine whether it posed any potential hazard to human or non-human health; 1. the plant or facility where the product was mined, manufactured, produced, or researched; j. the foreseeable users of the product (such as insulators, helpers, pipefitters, DEFENDANT GEORGIA-PACIFIC CORPORATION'S FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS Page 1

62

boilermakers, welders, machinists, plasterers, drywall finishers, carpenters, shipwrights, etc.); and k. a description of any warnings that Defendant placed on the product or its packaging, operating manuals, brochures, catalogs, or other related printed material. This description should include the precise language of the warning, the size of the warning, the location on the product or its packaging where the warning was printed, and when the warning was first placed on the product. RESPONSE: Georgia-Pacific objects to Interrogatory No. 10 on the grounds that it is compound, vague and ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome, and seeks information which is irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence in these cases, particularly as it seeks information regarding products not at issue in these cases. Subject to and without waiving these objections, Georgia-Pacific states that it has never been engaged in mining, distributing, marketing, advertising or selling raw asbestos. By way of further response, Georgia-Pacific states that either Bestwall or Georgia-Pacific, or both, manufactured and distributed the following products which contained asbestos as a constituent ingredient. In addition, several of these products also contained talc as a constituent ingredient. Georgia-Pacific denies that any products which do not contain asbestos as a constituent ingredient but contain talc are asbestos containing products as defined in these interrogatories. ALL PURPOSE JOINT COMPOUND Georgia-Pacific first placed All Purpose Joint Compound on the market for national distribution in 1967. Prior to that time, All Purpose Joint Compound may have been available for sale in limited areas. Georgia-Pacific first introduced asbestos-free All Purpose Joint Compound in 1973. Georgia-Pacific continues to sell asbestos-free All Purpose Joint Compound. The compound is a dry white or off-white powder used in wallboard construction to finish walls and ceilings. This product could not withstand high temperatures, moisture or excessive vibration. For these reasons, use of this product in industrial conditions was neither recommended nor foreseeable and, indeed, would have constituted a misuse of the product. The product is packaged in bags. Georgia-Pacific's asbestos-containing All Purpose Joint Compound contained 0-7% chrysotile asbestos. Talc was a constituent ingredient in certain formulas of All Purpose Joint Compound at varying times. Georgia-Pacific incorporates by reference the formulas which have previously been produced to Plaintiff's counsel and are located at Georgia-Pacific's document repository in Atlanta, Georgia. All Purpose may have contained up to 1% talc. BEDDING COMPOUND Bestwall first sold Bedding Compound in 1956, and Georgia-Pacific continued to manufacture Bedding Compound after it acquired Bestwall in 1965. Georgia-Pacific first introduced asbestos-free Bedding Compound in 1973. The last year that asbestos-containing Bedding Compound was sold by Georgia-Pacific was DEFENDANT GEORGIA-PACIFIC CORPORATION'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS Page 2

63

approximately 1977. Georgia-Pacific continues to sell asbestos-free Bedding Compound. Bedding Compound is a dry white or off-white powder used in wallboard construction to finish walls and ceilings. This product could not withstand high temperatures, moisture or excessive vibration. For these reasons, use of this product in industrial conditions was neither recommended nor foreseeable and, indeed, would have constituted a misuse of the product. It is packaged in bags. Asbestos-containing Bedding Compound contained 0-7% chrysotile asbestos. Talc was a constituent ingredient in certain formulas of Bedding Compound at varying times. Georgia-Pacific incorporates by reference the formulas which have previously been produced to Plaintiff's counsel and are located at Georgia-Pacific's document repository in Atlanta, Georgia. Bedding Compound may have contained up to 1% talc. CENTRAL MIX The first year that Georgia-Pacific sold Central Mix was 1970. The last year that Georgia-Pacific sold asbestos-containing Central Mix was 1973. Central Mix was a dry white or off-white powder used in wallboard construction to finish walls and ceilings. This product could not withstand high temperatures, moisture or excessive vibration. For these reasons, use of this product in industrial conditions was neither recommended nor foreseeable and, indeed, would have constituted a misuse of the product. Central Mix was packaged in bags. Central Mix contained 3-7% chrysotile asbestos. Talc was a constituent ingredient in certain formulas of Central Mix at varying times. Georgia-Pacific incorporates by reference the formulas which have previously been produced to Plaintiff's counsel and are located at Georgia-Pacific's document repository in Atlanta, Georgia. Central Mix may have contained up to 1% talc. DRYWALL ADHESIVE Georgia-Pacific sold Drywall Adhesive in 1972. The product came in the form of a paste and was designed to attach wallboard to wood studs. This product could not withstand high temperatures, moisture or excessive vibration. For these reasons, use of this product in industrial conditions was neither recommended nor foreseeable and, indeed, would have constituted a misuse of the product. Drywall Adhesive was packaged in tubes. Drywall Adhesive contained 0.8% chrysotile asbestos. JOINT COMPOUND Bestwall first sold a product with the brand name "Joint Compound" in 1956, and Georgia-Pacific continued to manufacture Joint Compound after it acquired Bestwall in 1965. The last year that Georgia-Pacific sold a product with the brand name "Joint Compound" was approximately 1971. Joint Compound was a dry white or off-white powder used in wallboard construction to finish walls and DEFENDANT GEORGIA-PACIFIC CORPORATION'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS Page 3

64

ceilings. This product could not withstand high temperatures, moisture or excessive vibration. For these reasons, use of this product in industrial conditions was neither recommended nor foreseeable and, indeed, would have constituted a misuse of the product. Joint Compound was packaged in bags. Asbestos-containing Joint Compound contained 0-6% chrysotile asbestos. KALITE Bestwall sold Kalite from 1956 to 1959. It was a dry white or off-white powder intended to be used as an acoustical plaster. This product could not withstand high temperatures, moisture or excessive vibration. For these reasons, use of this product in industrial conditions was neither recommended nor foreseeable and, indeed, would have constituted a misuse of the product. The product was packaged in bags. Kalite contained 0-2.6% chrysotile asbestos. LAMINATING COMPOUND — READY MIX Georgia-Pacific sold Laminating Compound — Ready Mix in 1969. The product came in paste form and was used to laminate wallboard. This product could not withstand high temperatures, moisture or excessive vibration. For these reasons, use of this product in industrial conditions was neither recommended nor foreseeable and, indeed, would have constituted a misuse of the product. The packaging for this product is unknown. Georgia-Pacific's Laminating Compound — Ready Mix contained 0-4% chrysotile asbestos. LITE ACOUSTIC Bestwall sold Lite Acoustic between 1958 and 1964. The product was a dry white or off-white powder intended for use as an acoustical plaster. This product could not withstand high temperatures, moisture or excessive vibration. For these reasons, use of this product in industrial conditions was neither recommended nor foreseeable and, indeed, would have constituted a misuse of the product. Lite Acoustic was packaged in bags. Lite Acoustic contained 25-29.09% chrysotile asbestos. PATCHING PLASTER Bestwall first sold Patching Plaster in 1956, and Georgia-Pacific continued to manufacture Patching Plaster after it acquired Bestwall in 1965. Georgia-Pacific removed asbestos from Patching Plaster in 1975. The last year that Georgia-Pacific sold asbestos-containing Patching Plaster was approximately 1976. Georgia-Pacific continues to sell asbestos-free Patching Plaster. The product is a dry white or off-white powder that is used to patch certain plasters. This product could not withstand high temperatures, moisture or excessive vibration. For these reasons, use of this product in industrial conditions was neither recommended nor foreseeable and, indeed, would have constituted a misuse of the product. It is packaged in bags. Asbestos-containing Patching Plaster contained 0-2% chrysotile asbestos. DEFENDANT GEORGIA-PACIFIC CORPORATION'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS Page 4

65

READY MIX Ready Mix was first sold by Bestwall in 1963, and Georgia-Pacific continued to manufacture Ready Mix after it acquired Bestwall in 1965. Georgia-Pacific introduced asbestos-free Ready Mix in 1974. The last year that asbestos-containing Ready Mix was manufactured was 1977. Georgia-Pacific continues to sell asbestos-free Ready Mix. The product is a paste used in wallboard construction to finish walls and ceilings. This product could not withstand high temperatures, moisture or excessive vibration. For these reasons, use of this product in industrial conditions was neither recommended nor foreseeable and, indeed, would have constituted a misuse of the product. Ready Mix packages include boxes, buckets, or pails. Asbestos-containing Ready Mix contained 0-4.6% chrysotile asbestos. Talc is and has been a constituent ingredient in certain formulas of Ready Mix at varying times. Georgia-Pacific incorporates by reference the formulas which have previously been produced to Plaintiff's counsel and are located in Georgia-Pacific's document repository in Atlanta, Georgia. Ready Mix may have contained up to 15% talc. SPACKLING COMPOUND Bestwall began selling Spackling Compound in 1956, and Georgia-Pacific continued to manufacture Spackling Compound after it acquired Bestwall in 1965, until 1970 or 1971. The product was a dry white or off-white powder used to patch or repair walls and ceilings. This product could not withstand high temperatures, moisture or excessive vibration. For these reasons, use of this product in industrial conditions was neither recommended nor foreseeable and, indeed, would have constituted a misuse of the product. It was packaged in bags or boxes. Spackling Compound contained 5.5% chrysotile asbestos. SPEED SET/ONE DAY Bestwall began selling One Day in 1963. Georgia-Pacific continued to manufacture and sell the product after it acquired Bestwall in 1965. The name of the product was changed to Speed Set in January 1970. Georgia-Pacific introduced asbestos-free Speed Set in May 1973. By October 1973, Speed Set was no longer manufactured using asbestos as a constituent ingredient. Georgia-Pacific continues to sell asbestos-free Speed Set. The product is a dry white or off-white powder used in wallboard construction to finish walls or ceilings. This product could not withstand high temperatures, moisture or excessive vibration. For these reasons, use of this product in industrial conditions was neither recommended nor foreseeable and, indeed, would have constituted a misuse of the product. Speed Set is packaged in bags. Asbestos-containing Speed Set contained 0-6.75% chrysotile asbestos. Talc was a constituent ingredient in certain formulas of Speed Set joint compound at varying times. Georgia-Pacific incorporates by reference the formulas which have previously been provided to Plaintiff's counsel and located at Georgia-DEFENDANT GEORGIA-PACIFIC CORPORATION'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS Page 5

66

Pacific's repository in Atlanta, Georgia. Speed Set may have contained up to 5% talc. TEXTURE Bestwall/Georgia-Pacific Texture was sold under various trade or brand names, including: Certex, Bestex, Wall Texture, Ceiling Texture/Perlite, Ceiling Texture/Vermiculite, and Ceiling Texture/Polystyrene. The first Texture was sold by Bestwall in 1956, and Georgia-Pacific continued to manufacture the product after it acquired Bestwall in 1965. Georgia-Pacific introduced asbestos-free Texture in 1972. The last year in which Georgia-Pacific sold asbestos-containing Texture was approximately 1974. Georgia-Pacific continues to sell asbestos-free Texture. Texture is a dry white or off-white powder used to give a textured, decorative appearance to walls or ceilings. This product could not withstand high temperatures, moisture or excessive vibration. For these reasons, use of this product in industrial conditions was neither recommended nor foreseeable and, indeed, would have constituted a misuse of the product. Texture is packaged in bags. Asbestos-containing Texture contained 0-15% chrysotile asbestos. Talc was a constituent ingredient in certain formulas of Textures at varying times. Georgia-Pacific incorporates by reference the formulas which have previously been produced to Plaintiff's counsel and are located in Georgia-Pacific's document repository in Atlanta, Georgia. Textures may have contained up to 10% talc. TOPPING COMPOUND Bestwall first sold Topping Compound in 1956, and Georgia-Pacific continued to manufacture Topping Compound after it acquired Bestwall in 1965. Georgia-Pacific introduced asbestos-free Topping Compound in 1973. The last year that Georgia-Pacific sold asbestos-containing Topping Compound was approximately 1977. Georgia-Pacific continues to sell asbestos-free Topping Compound. The product is a dry white or off-white powder used in wallboard construction to finish walls or ceilings. This product could not withstand high temperatures, moisture or excessive vibration. For these reasons, use of this product in industrial conditions was neither recommended nor foreseeable and, indeed, would have constituted a misuse of the product. It is packaged in bags. Asbestos-containing Topping Compound contained 0-7% chrysotile asbestos. Talc was a constituent ingredient in certain formulas of Topping Compound at varying times. Georgia-Pacific incorporates by reference the formulas which have previously been produced to Plaintiff's counsel and are located at Georgia-Pacific's document repository in Atlanta, Georgia. Topping Compound may have contained up to 1% talc. TRIPLE DUTY JOINT COMPOUND Georgia-Pacific has sold Triple Duty Joint Compound under the following brand/trade names: Triple Duty Joint Compound, Triple Duty Wallboard Joint DEFENDANT GEORGIA-PACIFIC CORPORATION'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS Page 6

67

Compound, and Triple Duty Joint Compound-Vinyl Based Adhesive. Georgia-Pacific first sold Triple Duty Joint Compound in 1965. Georgia-Pacific introduced asbestos-free Triple Duty Joint Compound in 1973. The last year that Georgia-Pacific sold asbestos-containing Triple Duty Joint Compound was approximately 1977. Georgia-Pacific continues to sell asbestos-free Triple Duty Joint Compound. The product is a dry white or off-white powder used in wallboard construction to finish walls and ceilings. This product could not withstand high temperatures, moisture or excessive vibration. For these reasons, use of this product in industrial conditions was neither recommended nor foreseeable and, indeed, would have constituted a misuse of the product. Triple Duty Joint Compound is packaged in bags. Georgia-Pacific's asbestos-containing Triple Duty Joint Compound contained 0-7% chrysotile asbestos. Talc was a constituent ingredient in certain formulas of Triple Duty at varying times. Georgia-Pacific incorporates by reference the formulas which have previously been produced to Plaintiff's counsel and are located at Georgia-Pacific's document repository in Atlanta, Georgia. Triple Duty may have contained up to 2% talc. OTHER Based upon current information and knowledge to date, from approximately 1964 to 1974, Georgia-Pacific used chrysotile asbestos pellets, believed to have been supplied by Union Carbide, as an additive to certain paperboard produced at its Bellingham, Washington board mill, which Georgia-Pacific did not sell directly to consumers, but rather sold to various converting companies. In addition, for a limited period of time, Georgia-Pacific used Union Carbide asbestos as an additive in one of its grades of industrial resins. Investigation into the nature of this resin, its intended use, and the period of its use of asbestos, if any, is ongoing. If necessary, Georgia-Pacific will supplement its response to this Interrogatory concerning these products as more information becomes available. From time to time, some of Georgia-Pacific's Distribution Centers throughout the United States may have purchased and sold small quantities of asbestos-containing products manufactured by other companies. These products generally were limited to conventional building products and did not include commercial or industrial products, such as industrial insulation products, fire proofing, asbestos cloth, or raw asbestos. Some of the products known to have been sold through the Distribution Centers, but which were not manufactured by Georgia-Pacific, include, but are not limited to, asbestos cement board manufactured by Johns-Manville, various roofing products containing asbestos from various manufacturererss and asbestos siding manufactured by Superdur (or perhaps Supradur) Corporation. Under limited circumstances, Georgia-Pacific rebranded joint system products manufactured by Kelly-Moore, and perhaps others, with its name. Georgia-Pacific also states that it sold some roof coating products rebranded with its name DEFENDANT GEORGIA-PACIFIC CORPORATION'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS Page 7

68

beginning in approximately 1973 in a limited geographical area. Georgia-Pacific or Bestwall also sold a small amount of asbestos-containing joint system products to Johns-Manville, Flintkote, and Big Horn Gypsum Company, which would have been sold under the buyers' labels for various time periods from the mid-1960s to mid-1970s. Georgia-Pacific's Gypsum Division sold its asbestos-containing products through its Distribution Division. Georgia-Pacific operated more than 175 Distribution Centers for many years, and discretion for sales of products not manufactured by Georgia-Pacific was retained at the level of the individual Distribution Center Manager. Records regarding sales of such products originated from the individual Distribution Centers and consist principally of large volumes of sales invoices, which are generally organize d chronologically by customer name. It is unknown how complete these records are. Therefore, it is virtually impossible to identify the customers and/or locations to which such products were sold and shipped without manually reviewing thousands of pages of these documents. Nevertheless, some of the products known to have been sold through the Distribution Centers, but which were not manufactured by Georgia-Pacific, include, but are not limited to, asbestos cement board manufactured by Johns-Manville, various roofing products containing asbestos from various manufacturers, and asbestos siding manufactured by Superdur (or perhaps Supradur) Corporation. Upon the request of Plaintiffs, these records, as well as other records pertaining to Georgia-Pacific's Gypsum Division's manufacture and sale of asbestos-containing products will be made available to Plaintiffs' counsel for inspection and copying in Atlanta, Georgia, at a mutually agreeable time. The products listed above were manufactured at the following facilities: All Purpose Joint Compound was manufactured at the following Georgia-Pacific facilities: Acme, Texas; Akron, New York; Chicago, Illinois; and Marietta, Georgia. Bedding Compound was manufactured at the following Georgia-Pacific facilities: Acme, Texas; Akron, New York; Chicago, Illinois; and Marietta, Georgia. Central Mix was manufactured at the following Georgia-Pacific facilities: Acme, Texas and Marietta, Georgia. Drywall Adhesive was manufactured at Georgia-Pacific's Akron, New York facility. Joint Compound was manufactured at the following Georgia-Pacific facilities: Acme, Texas; Akron, New York; Blue Rapids, Kansas; Chicago, Illinois; and Marietta, Georgia. DEFENDANT GEORGIA-PACIFIC CORPORATION'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS Page 8

69

Kalite was manufactured at the following Bestwall facilities: Acme, Texas and Akron, New York. Laminating Compound — Ready Mix was manufactured at Georgia-Pacific's Akron, New York facility. Lite Acoustic was manufactured at the following Bestwall facilities: Acme, Texas; Akron, New York; Blue Rapids, Kansas; Brunswick Georgia; Fort Dodge, Iowa; Grand Rapids, Michigan; and Sigurd, Utah. Patching Plaster was manufactured at the following Georgia-Pacific facilities: Acme, Texas; Blue Rapids, Kansas; and Brunswick, Georgia. Spackling Compound was manufactured at Georgia-Pacific's Acme, Texas facility. Speed Set/One Day was manufactured at Georgia-Pacific's Acme, Texas facility. Texture was manufactured at the following Georgia-Pacific facilities: Acme, Texas; Akron, New York; Chicago, Illinois; Marietta, Georgia; and Sigurd, Utah. Topping Compound was manufactured at the following Georgia-Pacific facilities: Acme, Texas; Akron, New York; Chicago, Illinois; and Marietta, Georgia. Triple Duty Joint Compound was manufactured at the following Georgia-Pacific facilities: Acme, Texas; Akron, New York; Chicago, Illinois; and Marietta, Georgia. Ready Mix was manufactured at the following Georgia-Pacific facilities: Acme, Texas; Akron, New York; Brunswick, Georgia; and Milford, Virginia. Industrial Plasters were manufactured at the following Georgia-Pacific facilities: Blue Rapids, Kansas; Ft. Dodge, Iowa; Acme, Texas; Grand Rapids, Michigan; and Sigurd, Utah. Prepared Trowel Finish was manufactured at the following Georgia-Pacific facilities: Blue Rapids, Kansas; Wilmington, Delaware; Akron, New York; Ft. Dodge, Iowa; and Brunswick, Georgia. Bestwall and Georgia-Pacific manufactured and sold a number of industrial plasters, including, but not limited to, metal casting, molding, and breakaway plasters. These products generally are dry powders which are used in various industrial casting, tooling, and molding applications. Georgia-Pacific does not have any information reflecting that any Metal Casting Plaster which contained DEFENDANT GEORGIA-PACIFIC CORPORATION'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS Page 9

70

asbestos as a constituent ingredient was marketed, nor that any other industrial plaster contained asbestos as a constituent ingredient. Talc was a constituent ingredient in certain formulas of industrial plasters at varying times. Georgia-Pacific incorporates by reference the formulas which have previously been produced to Plaintiff's counsel and are located in Georgia-Pacific's document repository in Atlanta, Georgia. Industrial plasters may have contained up to 27% talc. Bestwall first sold Prepared Trowel Finish in 1956, and Georgia-Pacific continued to manufacture Prepared Trowel Finish after it acquired Bestwall in 1965. Prepared Trowel Finish was a pre-mixed gypsum finish coat plaster. It never contained asbestos as a constituent ingredient. Talc was a constituent ingredient in certain formulas of Prepared Trowel Finish at varying times. Georgia-Pacific incorporates by reference the formulas which have previously been produced to Plaintiff's counsel and are located in Georgia-Pacific's document repository in Atlanta, Georgia. Prepared Trowel Finish may have contained up to 34% talc. Talc was a constituent ingredient of a few of the joint system and industrial plaster products manufactured by Georgia-Pacific and its predecessor Bestwall Gypsum Company. Talc was a constituent ingredient in certain formulas for certain products at varying times. Georgia-Pacific incorporates by reference into this interrogatory its formulas which have been previously produced to Plaintiff's counsel. Moreover, talc has been specified for use on the back of gypsum board to prevent scuffing during shipment. Georgia-Pacific and/or its predecessor have purchased talc from the following suppliers: • Pioneer Talc Co., Van Horn, TX; Suzorite Mineral Products, Inc., Spruce Pine, NC; • Luzenac America, Inc, Englewood, CO; Whittaker, Clark & Daniels, Inc.; Alberene Stone Corp.; • Eastern Magnesia Talc Co.; Southwestern Talc Co., Llano, Texas; Southern Talc Co.; • International Talc Co.; • RT Vanderbilt Co., Inc.; DEFENDANT GEORGIA-PACIFIC CORPORATION'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS Page 10

71

International Pulp Co., Hailesboro, NY; • Carbola Chemical Co., Natural Bridge, NY; Cyprus Mines Corp., United Sierra Div., Trenton, NJ; and Windsor Materials, Inc., Windsor, VT. By way of further response to this Interrogatory, Georgia-Pacific states that beginning in 1973, caution labels were affixed to the containers of Georgia-Pacific's asbestos-containing joint systems products, as required by OSHA. The caution labels were worded, in accordance with the recommendations of OSHA, as follows: CAUTION CONTAINS ASBESTOS FIBERS AVOID CREATING DUST BREATHING ASBESTOS DUST MAY CAUSE SERIOUS BODILY HARM Where appropriate, the following additional language appeared on the labels beginning in 1974: WHEN MIXING OR SANDING USE APPROVED RESPIRATOR or USE APPROVED RESPIRATOR WHEN SANDING Georgia-Pacific discontinued use of the caution labels when asbestos was eliminated from its products, a process which was completed in 1977. A copy of the caution label is in the custody of Georgia-Pacific's national counsel and, at the request of Plaintiffs, it will be made available to Plaintiffs' counsel for inspection and copying in Atlanta, Georgia. Georgia-Pacific also states that a limited amount of documentation still exists concerning the advertisement of its asbestos-containing products, and product brochures and photographs of product packaging are available for most of the years during which Georgia-Pacific and/or Bestwall manufactured asbestos-containing products. These documents would be contained in Georgia-Pacific's collection of corporate documents related to its asbestos-containing products. At the request of Plaintiffs, Georgia-Pacific will make these documents available to Plaintiffs' counsel for inspection and copying in Atlanta, Georgia, at a mutually agreeable time. DEFENDANT GEORGIA-PACIFIC CORPORATION'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS Page 11

72

In further response to this Interrogatory, Georgia-Pacific states that it did not obtain patents for its limited number of asbestos-containing products. Additionally, to the best of its knowledge Georgia-Pacific did not "conduct any testing" of its asbestos-containing products, as described in this Interrogatory. However, as a member of trade organizations, Georgia-Pacific may have contributed indirectly to studies or research of the relationship between exposure to asbestos-containing products and pulmonary abnormalities. Specifically, in November, 1973, testing of asbestos-containing joint systems products similar to those manufactured by Georgia-Pacific was conducted through the Gypsum Association, of which Georgia-Pacific was a member. The tests were conducted with OSHA approval. The results of the testing are contained in a report dated November 19, 1973 entitled "Evaluation of Exposure to Asbestos During Mixing and Sanding of Joint Compounds," which was finalized and made available to Gypsum Association members in the spring of 1974. A copy of this report, and other responsive documents, would be contained in Georgia-Pacific's collection of corporate documents, relating to its asbestos-containing products. At the request of Plaintiffs, Georgia-Pacific will make these documents available to Plaintiffs' counsel for inspection and copying in Atlanta, Georgia, at a mutually agreeable time. Respectfully submitted, BAILEY/CROWE & KUGLER, L.L.P. 6550 Bank of America Plaza 901 Main Street Dallas, Texas 75202 (214) 231-0555 - Telephone (214) 231-0556 - Facsimile ear ed By: LAURA ELLIS KUGLER State Bar No.: 06571020 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT GEORGIA-PACIFIC CORPORATION CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE A true and correct copy of the above and foregoing has been forwarded to counsel of record for Plaintiffs herein, on this day of October, 2005. S&L' /9&- } B y: LAURA ELLIS KUGLER DEFENDANT GEORGIA-PACIFIC CORPORATION'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS Page 12

73

EXHIBIT E

74

May 27, 1970 NEW FORMULA 6 ACME, TEXAS PLANT FORMULA TRIPLE DUTY JOINT SYSTEM COMPOUND NO. TEX-902 Central Mix Compound DESCRIPTION OF PRODUCT: - Vinyl Multi-Purpose compound for use with perforated tape. It is used for taping, finishing, and spotting nailheads. It may be used as a texture. .It is also supplied to "central mix" operations. FORMULA Raw Material Function R.M.Seec. Percent Lbs/Batch `Vanicide 51Z Fungicide 126 .05 1 Id5 Cellosize QP 100,000 Thickner .60 12 • IF,2.? Gelvatol RS 6219 Adhesive 162 .1.00 -20 jo,44 Gelva GP 702 Adhesive 161. 3.00 60 23. 23 Asbestos 7RF9 Bulking agent 9 , 5.00 100 +,14- Mica P80-H Anti-cracking agent 11 5.00 100 /-21" D.agoasitst--M14-1 Aii€14C0 Anti foaming agent 196 20 4' /.74i Glacial Talc 325 Filler 2.00 40 I.V4 .5,40 Land Plaster TEX-25 Filler 83.15 1663 100.00 20004/.04- WORKING CONSISTENCY: - Refer to Plant Testing Procedure No. 32. Specifications: Maximum Minimum - Average 58 52 55 WORKING PROPERTIES: - Refer to Plant Testing Procedure No. 33. Specifications: Wet mix shall be plastic and buttery working and free of grit or coarse particles. BONDING PROPERTIES: - Refer to Plant Testing Procedure No. 35. Specifications: After compound has dried, tape shall delaminate when peeled back. CRACK RESISTANCE: - Specifications: There shall be at most only a couple of very small cracks in the wedge. COLOR: - White Specifications: Dried compound shall not vary in color from pre-ceding batches. EDO:dek Cardinale Levin-000

75

May 27, 1970 NEW FORMULA 4043d . 62'4 ACME, TEXAS PLANT FORMULA BEDDING COMPOUND NO. TEX-927 DESCRIPTION OF PRODUCT: - Bedding Compound for use with perforated tape for bedding tape and Not to be used as a topping compound. FORMULA Raw Material Function R.M.Spec. Percent Lbs/Batch Vanicide 51Z Fungicide 126 .05 1.0 Cellosize QP 100,000 Thickner .20 4.0 Gelvatol RS 6219 Adhesive 162 3.00 60.0 Asbestos 7RF-9 Bulking agent 9 3.00 60.0 Mica P80-11 Anti-cracking agent 11 5.00 100.0 M1-1I H41-44) Anti-foaming agent 196 .10 2.0 Glacial Talc 325 Filler 1.00 20.0 Land Plaster TEX;t25 Filler 87.65 1753.0 100.00 2000.0 WORKING CONSISTENCY: - Refer to Plant Testing Procedure No. 32. Specifications: Maximum Minimum Average 58 52 55 WORKING PROPERTIES: - Refer to PlantTesting Procedure No. 33. Specifications: Wet mix shall be plastic and buttery working and free of grit or coarse particles. BONDING PROPERTIES: - Refer to Plant Testing Procedure No. 35, Specifications: After compound has dried, tape' shall delaminate when peeled back. CRACK RESISTANCE: - Specification: There shall be at most only a couple of very small cracks' in the wedge. COLOR: - White Specifications; Dried compound shall not vary in color from pre-ceding batches. EDO:dek Cardinale Levin-000

76

May 21, 1970 Supersedes Formula No. TEX-93I Dated 2/12/70 ACME, TEXAS PLANT FORMULA TOPPING COMPOUND TEX-931 DEFINITION OF PRODUCT: - Yellow Topping Compound for topping joints and spotting nailheads. -1 FORMULA Raw Material Function R.M.Spec. Percent Lbs/Batch Vanicide 51Z Fungicide 126 .05 1.0 Cellosize QP 100,000 Thickner 170 50 10.0 Gelvatol RS-6219 Adhesive 162 1.00 20.0 Asbestos 7RF-9 Bulking Agent 9 4,00 80.0 Mica POOH Anti-cracking agent 11 5.00 100.0 Defoamer M.111 Anti-foaming agent 196 10 2.0 Glacial Talc 325 Filler 1.00 20.0 Gelva GP702 Adhesive 161 2.50 50,0 Land Plaster TEX-25 Filler 85.75 1715.0 Yellow Oxide Pigme t 139 .10 2.0 100.00 2000.0' WORKING CONSISTENCY: - Refer to Plant Testing Procedure No. 32. Specifications: Maximum Minimum Averags 60 53 57 WORKING PROPERTIES: - Refer to Plant Testing ProCedure No, 35. Specifications: Wet mix Shall be plastic and buttery working and free of grit or coarse particles. BONDING PROPERTIES: - Refer to Plant Testing Procedure No. 35. Specifications: After compound has dried, tape shall delaminate when peeled back, CRACK RESISTANCE: - Specifications: There shall be at most only a couple of very small cracks in the wedge.. 0010R: - Specifications: Dried compound should match the color of ivory wallboard paper closely and be free of color streaks. ) -/ Denotes change in this formula. EDO:dek Cardinale Levin-0010

77

May 27, 1970 Supersedes Formula No. TEX-932 Dated 2/12/70 ACME, TEXAS PLANT FORMULA TOPPING COMPOUND TEX-932 DEFINITION OF PRODUCT: - White Topping Compound for topping joints and spotting nailheads. -/ FORMULA Raw Material Function R.M.Spec. Percent Lbs/Batch Vanicide 51Z Fungicide 126 .05 1.0 Cellosi,xe QP 100,000 Thickner 170 50 10.0 Gelvatol RS-6219 Adhesive 162 1.00 20.0 Asbestos 7RF-9 -Bulking agent 9 4.00 80.0 Mic P8OH Anti-cracking agent 11 5.00 100.0 Defoamer M111 Anti-foaming agent 196 .10 2.0 Glacial Talc 325 Filler 1.00 - 20.0 Gelva GP 702 Adhesive 161 2.50 50.0 Land:flaster TEX-25 Filler 85.85 1717.0 100..00 2000.0 WORKING CONSISTENCY: Refer to Plant Testing Procedure No. 32. Specifications: Maximum Minimum Average 60 53 57 WORKING PROPERTIES: Refer to Plant Testing Procedure No. 35. Specific tions: Wet mix shall be plastic'and buttery working and free of grit or coarse particles. BONDING PROPERTIES: - Refer to Plant Testing Procedure No. 35. Specifications: After compound has dried, tape shall delaminate when peeled back. CRACK RESISTANCE: - Specifications: There shall be at most only a couple of very small cracks in the wedge. COLOR: - Specifications: Dried compound should match the color of ivory wallboard paper closely and be free of color streaks. Denotes change in this reissue. EDO:dek Cardinale Levin-001

78

August 20, 1969 NEW FORMULA' ACME, TEXAS PLANT FORMULA. /10 1 ALL PURPOSE COMPOUND TEX 955 EA.01A/C- CRivrreirit. 1•11, ,. 749 DESCRIPTION OF PRODUCT - All purpose compound for taping and finishing joints, spotting nailheads and texturing. May be,.also, used for specified central mix operations. FORMULA Raw. Material Function R.M. Spec. Percent Lbs'./Batch Vanicide 512 Fungicide' 126 .05 1.0 Natrosol 250HRR Water Rdtention agent 170 .30 Gelvatol RS-6219 Adhesive 162 3.00 60.0 AsbestoS 9 3.00 60.0 Mica Anti-cracking agent .11 6.00 X28:13 ~OD.t Refoamer M-11i Anti-foaming agent 196 .05 3 2.0 Glacial Talc 325 Filler 1.00 20.0 -Pctro-40 -%435• Land Plaster TEX 25 Filler 86.55 /-751'.'0 /753 100.00 2000.0 WORKING CONSISTENCY - Refer to Plant Testing Procedure No. 32, Specifications: Maximum Minimum Average 58 52 55 , WORKING PROPERTIES - Refer to Plant Testing. Procedure No. 33. Specifications: Wet mix shall be plastic and buttery working and free of grit or coarse particles. BONDING PROPERTIES - Refer to Plant Testing Procedure-No; 35. Specifications: After compound has'dried, tape-shall delaminate when peeled back. CRACK RESISTANCE - Specifications: There shall be at zost only a couple of very small cracks in the wedge. COLOR - Specifications: Dried compound should match the color of ivory wallboard paper closely and be free of color streaks. EDO:dek Cardinale Levin-0019

79

- May 27, 1970 1 NEW FORMULA I ACME, TEXAS PLANT.FORMULA ALL PURPOSE AND COMPOUND WWITE TEX-955 DESCRIPTION OF PRODUCT: - All Purpose compound for taping and finishing joints, spotting nailheads and texturing. -/ FORMULA Raw Material Function B.M.Spec. Percent Lbs/Batch Vanicide 51Z. Fungicide 126 .05 1.0 -4atr-osca-2.40-4REReEiL05/Z/gter Retention Agent 170 .20 4.0 Gelvatol RS-6219 Adhesive 162 3.00 60.0 Asbestos Bulking Agent 9 3.00 60.0 Mica Anti-Cracking Agent 11 5.00 100.0 Defoamer M111 Anti-Foaming Agent 196 .10 2.0 Glacial Talc 325 Filler 1.00 20:0 Land Plaster TEX-25 Filler 87.65 1753.0 100.00 2000.0 WORKING CONSISTENCY: Refer to Plant Testing Procedure No. 32. Specifications: Maximum Minimum Average 58 52 55 WORKING PROPERTIES: - Refer to Plant Testing Procedure No. 33. Specifications: Wet mix shall be plastic and buttery working and free of grit or coarse particles. BONDING PROPERTIES: - Refer to Plant Testing Procedure No. 35. Specifications: After compound has dried, tape shall delaminate when peeled back. CRACK RESISTANCE: - Specifications:, There shall be at most only a couple df-very small cracks in the wedge. COLOR: - White Specifications: Dried compound shall not vary in color from pre-ceding batches. EDO:dek -1 Denotes change in this reissue. I 'Y 0 Cardinale Levin-00197

80

0c4.41.,-C 2/, PW, NEW FORMULA IJ ACME, TEXAS PLANT FORMULA TOPPING COMPOUND TEX-956 DESCRIPTION OF PRODUCT - White Topping Compound for topping joints and spotting nailheads. FORMULA Raw Material Function R.M. Spec, Percent Lbs/Batch Vanicide 51Z Fungicide 126 .05 1.0 Natrosal 250 HXR Thickner 170 .50 10.0 Gelvatol RS-6219 Adhesive 162 3.00 60.0 Asbestos 7RF-9 Bulking Agent -9 3.00 60'.0 - Mica paok Anti-Cracking Agent 11 6.00 120.0 Dufoamer MITI Anti-Foaming Agent 196 .05 1.0 / Glacial Talc 325 Filler 1.00 20.0 Petro AD Wetting Agent 143 .05 1:0 Land Plaster TEX-25 Filler - 86.35 1727.0 100.00 2000,0 WORKING CONSISTENCY - Refer to!Plant Testing Procedure No. 32. Specifications: Maximum Minimum Average 60 53 57 WORKING PROPERTIES - Refer to Plant Testing Procedure No. 32. Specifications: Wet mix shall be plastic and buttery working and tree of grit or coarse particles. BONDING PROPERTIES - Refer to Plant Testing Procedure.No. 35. Specifications:, After compound has dried, tape shall delaminate when peeled back. CRACK RESISTANCE - Specifications: There shall be at most, only a couple of very small cracks in the wedge. COLOR - Specifications: Dried compound should match the'color'of ivory wallboard paper closely and be free of color streaks. EDO:dek 1 i Cardinale Levin-002

81

March 30, 1970 NEW FORMULA ACME, TEXAS PLANT FORMULA ALL PURPOSE BEDDING AND CENTRAL MIX COMPOUND (YELLOW) TEX-956 DESCRIPTION OF PRODUCT - All Purpose compound for taping and finishing joints, spotting nailheads and texturing. FORMULA Raw Material Function R.M. Spec. Percent Lbs/batch Yellow Oxide 2087 Pigment 139 .10 2.0 Vanicide 512 Fungicide 126. .05 1.0 Natrosol 250 RXR Water Retention Agent 170 .20 4.0 t Gelvatol RS-6219 Adhesive 162 3,00 60.0 Asbestos Bulking Agent 9 3.00 60.0 Mica Anti-Cracking Agent 11 5.00 100.0 Defoamer M111 Anti-Foaming Agent 196 .10 2.0 r Glacial Talc 325 Filler 1.00 20.0 Land Plaster'TEX- 25 Filler 87.55 1751.0 100.00 2000.0 II) WORKING CONSISTENCY - Refer to Plant Testing Procedure No. 32. .Specifications:. Maximum Minimum Average i 58 52 55 WORKING PROPERTIES - Refer to Plant Testing Procedure No. 33. SpecifiCations: Wet mix shall be plastic and buttery working and free of grit or coarse particles. BONb ING PROPERTIES - Refer to Plant Testing Procedure No.. 35. Specifications: `After compound has dried, tape shall delaminate when t .peeled- back. CRACK RESISTANCE - - Specifications: •There shall be at most only a couple of very small cracks in the wedge. COLOR - Specifications: Dried compound should match the color of ivory .. waliboard.paper closely and be free of color streaks. I 7 .EDO:dek , . . • ' • Cardinale Levin-00

82

EXHIBIT F

83

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION IN RE: ) ) GARLOCK SEALING TECHNOLOGIES ) LLC, et al, ) No. 10-BK-31607 ) Debtors. ) VOLUME II-A _____________________________) MORNING SESSION TRANSCRIPT OF ESTIMATION TRIAL BEFORE THE HONORABLE GEORGE R. HODGES UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE JULY 23, 2013 APPEARANCES: On Behalf of Debtors: GARLAND S. CASSADA, ESQ. Robinson Bradshaw & Hinson, PA 101 North Tryon Street, Suite 1900 Charlotte, North Carolina 28246 JONATHAN C. KRISKO, ESQ. Robinson Bradshaw & Hinson PA 101 North Tryon Street, Suite 1900 Charlotte, North Carolina 28246 LOUIS ADAM BLEDSOE, III, ESQ. Robinson Bradshaw & Hinson PA 101 North Tryon Street, Suite 1900 Charlotte, North Carolina 28246 RICHARD C. WORF, ESQ. Robinson Bradshaw & Hinson, PA 101 North Tryon Street, Suite 1900 Charlotte, North Carolina 28246

84

APPEARANCES (Continued): On Behalf of the Debtors: RAY HARRIS, ESQ. Schachter Harris, LLP 400 East Las Colinas Blvd. Irving, Texas 75039 CARY SCHACHTER, ESQ. Schachter Harris, LLP 400 East Las Colinas Blvd. Irving, Texas 75039 C. RICHARD RAYBURN, JR., ESQ. Rayburn Cooper & Durham, PA 227 West Trade Street, Suite 1200 Charlotte, North Carolina 28202 SHELLEY KOON ABEL, ESQ. Rayburn Cooper & Durham, PA 227 West Trade Street, Suite 1200 Charlotte, North Carolina 28202 ALBERT F. DURHAM, ESQ. Rayburn Cooper & Durham, PA 227 West Trade Street, Suite 1200 Charlotte, North Carolina 28202 ROSS ROBERT FULTON, ESQ. Rayburn Cooper & Durham, PA 227 West Trade Street, Suite 1200 Charlotte, North Carolina 28202 JOHN R. MILLER, JR., ESQ. Rayburn Cooper & Durham, PA 227 West Trade Street, Suite 1200 Charlotte, North Carolina 28202 ASHLEY K. NEAL, ESQ. Rayburn Cooper & Durham, PA 227 West Trade Street, Suite 1200 Charlotte, North Carolina 28202 WILLIAM SAMUEL SMOAK, JR., ESQ. Rayburn Cooper & Durham, PA 227 West Trade Street, Suite 1200 Charlotte, North Carolina 28202

85

APPEARANCES (Continued.): On Behalf of Interested Parties: Carson Protwall LP: JULIE BARKER PAPE, ESQ. Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, PLLC P.O. Drawer 84 Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27102 Coltec Industries Inc.: DANIEL GRAY CLODFELTER, ESQ. Moore & Van Allen, PLLC 100 North Tryon Street, Suite 4700 Charlotte, North Carolina 28202-4003 HILLARY B. CRABTREE, ESQ. Moore & Van Allen, PLLC 100 North Tryon Street, Suite 4700 Charlotte, North Carolina 28202-4003 MARK A. NEBRIG, ESQ. Moore & Van Allen, PLLC 100 North Tryon Street, Suite 4700 Charlotte, North Carolina 28202-4003 EDWARD TAYLOR STUKES, ESQ. Moore & Van Allen, PLLC 100 North Tryon Street, Suite 4700 Charlotte, North Carolina 28202-4003 Creditor Committees: Official Committee of Asbestos Personal Injury Claimants: LESLIE M. KELLEHER, ESQ. Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered One Thomas Circle NW, Suite 1100 Washington, DC 20005 JEANNA RICKARDS KOSKI, ESQ. Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered One Thomas Circle NW, Suite 1100 Washington, DC 20005

86

APPEARANCES (Continued.): Official Committee of Asbestos Personal Injury Claimaints: JEFFREY A. LIESEMER, ESQ. Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered One Thomas Circle NW, Suite 1100 Washington, DC 20005 KEVIN C. MACLAY, ESQ. Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered One Thomas Circle NW, Suite 1100 Washington, DC 20005 TODD E. PHILLIPS, ESQ. Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered One Thomas Circle NW, Suite 1100 Washington, DC 20005 TREVOR W. SWETT, ESQ. Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered One Thomas Circle NW, Suite 1100 Washington, DC 20005 JAMES P. WEHNER, ESQ. Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered One Thomas Circle NW, Suite 1100 Washington, DC 20005 ELIHU INSELBUCH, ESQ. Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered 600 Lexington Avenue, 21st Floor New York, New York 10022 NATHAN D. FINCH, ESQ. Motley Rice, LLC 1000 Potomac Street, NW, Suite 150 Washington, DC 20007 GLENN C. THOMPSON, ESQ. Hamilton Stephens Steele & Martin 201 South College Street, Suite 2020 Charlotte, North Carolina 28244-2020 TRAVIS W. MOON, ESQ. Moon Wright & Houston, PLLC 227 West Trade Street, Suite 1800 Charlotte, North Carolina 28202

87

APPEARANCES (Continued.): Official Committee of Asbestos Personal Injury Claimaints: RICHARD S. WRIGHT, ESQ. Moon Wright & Houston, PLLC 226 West Trade Street, Suite 1800 Charlotte, North Carolina 28202 ANDREW T. HOUSTON, ESQ. Moon Wright & Houston, PLLC 227 West Trade Street, Suite 1800 Charlotte, North Carolina 28202 SCOTT L. FROST, ESQ. Waters Kraus, LLP 222 North Sepulveda Boulevard, Suite 1900 El Segundo, California 90245 JONATHAN A. GEORGE, ESQ. Waters Kraus, LLP 3219 McKinney Avenue Dallas, Texas 75204 Future Asbestos Claimaints: KATHLEEN A. ORR, ESQ. Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP 1152 15th Street, N.W., Columbia Center Washington, DC 20005-1706 JONATHAN P. GUY, ESQ. Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP 1152 15th Street, N.W., Columbia Center Washington, DC 20005-1706 Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors: DEBORAH L. FLETCHER, ESQ. FSB Fisher Broyles, LLP 6000 Fairview Road, Suite 1200 Charlotte, North Carolina 28210

88

1 I N D E X DEBTORS' WITNESS: PAGE 2 3 DAVID GARABRANT 4 Continued Direct Examination By Mr. Schachter 270 Cross Examination By Mr. George 311 5 Cross Examination By Mr. Guy 392 Redirect Examination By Mr. Schachter 394 6 7 * * * * * * 8 E X H I B I T S 9 DEBTORS' EXHIBITS: NO. ADMITTED10 15786 ................................................310 11 12 * * * * * * 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Laura Andersen, RMR 704-350-7493

89

1 to protect. Because it doesn't sound like, you know, they 2 wanted it anymore than you wanted them to have it. Okay? 3 MR. WEHNER: That's fine with us, Your Honor. 4 THE COURT: All right. Good. Thank you. 5 MR. DAVID: Thanks, judge. 6 THE COURT: All right. Let's come back at 9:30. 7 (A brief recess was taken in the proceedings at 8 8:50 a.m.) 9 (Court reconvened at 9:31 a.m.) 10 DAVID GARABRANT, 11 Being previously duly sworn, was examined and testified as12 follows: 13 CONTINUED DIRECT EXAMINATION 14 BY MR. SCHACHTER: 15 Q. Good morning. Dr. Garabrant, when we concluded, we had16 gone through your initial summary slide, and we concluded with17 the literature that is most recent on gaskets and brake 18 exposures. 19 I talked to you about the fact that you would be able to 20 help to understand how the scientific method works for these21 issues and epidemiology. Have you prepared some slides that22 will help us understand that? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. If you would, could you please explain how the scientific25 method works to resolve issues of causation? Laura Andersen, RMR 704-350-7493

90

1 Do you have an example that's related to mesothelioma of 2 how studies can or cannot tell us whether there's a 3 significant association? 4 A. Yes. You go to the next slide. 5 All right. This is a slide that summarizes the world's 6 literature on cigarette smoking and risk of mesothelioma. 7 So there are about a dozen studies that have looked at 8 this. McDonald in 1970 found that the relative risk was .56, 9 running .37 to .85. So that's a significant inverse 10 association. 11 McEwen in '71 .5, not statistically significant. 12 You can glance down the list and see that the results 13 vary, both above and beyond 1. Not very far away from 1. 14 Look at the scale here .1. That's a 1/10th risk. Ten, that's15 a 10-fold risk. 16 Q. That's a logarithmic scale? 17 A. That's a logarithmic scale, right. 18 Q. Okay. 19 A. So 1/10 is the same distance from 1, as 10 is from 1. 20 Q. Does this slide give us a meta relative risk for the 21 association between smoking and mesothelioma? 22 A. It does. 23 Q. And what is that? 24 A. At the bottom the meta relative risk is calculated -- 25 it's actually calculated in two different ways. For this oneLaura Andersen, RMR 704-350-7493

91

1 the correct answer is here. So if you take a weighted average 2 of all these relative risks, the weighted average is .94. 3 It's almost identical to 1, and the confidence interval 4 goes from .83 to 1.07. What this says is, there is no 5 association between smoking and mesothelioma risk. 6 Q. Now sir, cigarette smoke from a medical standpoint, does 7 it contain carcinogens? 8 A. Yes, it does. 9 Q. Are those carcinogens capable of causing genetic errors10 in human cells? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. Do the carcinogens in cigarette smoke, reach the pleura,13 the site of origin of pleural mesothelioma? 14 A. Yes, they do. Black soot accumulates on the pleura in15 smokers. 16 Q. So if all that's true, doesn't that establish that 17 cigarette smoke does cause mesothelioma? 18 A. Well, Mr. Schachter, you've got a hypotheses. Here's the19 data that tests your hypotheses. The answer is, the data does20 not support your hypotheses. This has been studied 10 times. 21 These are very large studies, some of them, involving 22 thousands and thousands of people. And the answer is, no. 23 Your hypotheses is not supported by the data. It is not 24 reasonable to conclude that smoking causes mesothelioma. 25 Q. And that's because of what? Laura Andersen, RMR 704-350-7493

92

1 A. Because of an abundance of epidemiological evidence that 2 shows no association. 3 Q. Thank you, sir. 4 Now, have you applied these same meta-analysis 5 methodologies to the issue of whether low dose chrysotile 6 encapsulated products cause mesothelioma? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. Okay. And in specifics, the product in question is what, 9 brakes and gaskets? 10 A. Well, the occupation in which there is a low dose 11 exposure to chrysotile, is vehicle mechanic. Because they12 handle brakes, clutches and gaskets, which have traditionally13 included chrysotile, in one or more formulations. 14 Q. Just as cigarette smoking has been studied, have vehicle15 mechanics been studied in many studies? 16 A. Yes, they have. 17 Q. Are you prepared to tell us about a few of them and the18 types of studies they are and who funded them? 19 A. Yeah. 20 Q. Issues like that? 21 A. Yeah. These slides go on for a number of pages, and I22 will not belabor them. I will talk quickly about a few of the23 studies. 24 What I've listed is the author, the year it was published25 and who funded it. Laura Andersen, RMR 704-350-7493

93

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA 2 CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER 3 I, Laura Andersen, Official Court Reporter, certify 4 that the foregoing transcript is a true and correct transcriptof the proceedings taken and transcribed by me. 5 Dated this the 23rd day of July, 2013. 6 7 s/Laura Andersen 8 Laura Andersen, RMR Official Court Reporter 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

94

EXHIBIT G

95

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF DELAWARE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IN RE: . Case No. 10-11780(JKF) . SPECIALTY PRODUCTS HOLDING . CORPORATION, et al., . . Debtors. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SPECIALTY PRODUCTS HOLDING . Adv. Pro. No. 10-51085(JKF) CORP., BONDEX INTERNATIONAL,. INC., . . Plaintiffs, . . v. . 5414 U.S. Steel Tower . 600 Grant Street THOSE PARTIES LISTED ON . Pittsburgh, PA 15219 EXHIBIT A TO COMPLAINT AND . JOHN AND JANE DOES 1-1000, . . January 8, 2013 Defendants. . 8:41 a.m. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TRANSCRIPT OF ASBESTOS LIABILITY ESTIMATION TRIAL BEFORE HONORABLE JUDITH K. FITZGERALD UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT JUDGE Audio Operator: Janet Heller Proceedings recorded by electronic sound recording, transcriptproduced by transcription service ______________________________________________________________J&J COURT TRANSCRIBERS, INC. 268 Evergreen Avenue Hamilton, New Jersey 08619 E-mail: jjcourt@jjcourt.com

96

2 APPEARANCES: For the Debtor: Jones Day By: GREGORY GORDON, ESQ. DANIEL B. PRIETO, ESQ. THOMAS R. JACKSON, ESQ. 2727 North Harwood Street Dallas, TX 75201 Evert, Weathersby, Houff By: C. MICHAEL EVERT, JR., ESQ. 3405 Piedmont Road, Suite 200 Atlanta, GA 30305 Evert, Weathersby, Houff By: EDWARD F. HOUFF, ESQ. 120 E. Baltimore Street, Suite 1300 Baltimore, MD 21202 For the Committee of Montgomery, McCracken, Walker & Asbestos Personal Injury Rhoads Claimants: By: LATHROP B. NELSON, III, ESQ. NATALIE RAMSEY, ESQ. MARK B. SHEPPARD, ESQ. K. CARRIE SARHANGI, ESQ. KATHERINE M. FIX, ESQ. 123 South Broad Street Philadelphia, PA 19109 Montgomery, McCracken, Walker & Rhoads By: MARK FINK, ESQ. 1105 North Market Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Motley Rice LLC By: NATHAN D. FINCH, ESQ. 1000 Potomac St. NW, Suite 150 Washington, DC 20007 Waters Kraus Paul By: SCOTT L. FROST, ESQ. 222 N. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 1900 El Segundo, CA 90245 WWW.JJCOURT.COM

97

3 APPEARANCES (Cont'd): For the ACC: Waters Kraus Paul By: JONATHAN A. GEORGE, ESQ. 3219 McKinney Avenue Dallas, Texas 75204 For Future Claimants Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor LLP Representatives: By: EDWIN J. HARRON, ESQ. SHARON ZIEG, ESQ. JOHN T. DORSEY, ESQ. ERIN EDWARDS, ESQ. The Brandywine Building 1000 West Street, 17th Floor Wilmington, DE 19801 For RPM International: Thorp, Reed & Armstrong By: WILLIAM M. WYCOFF, ESQ. JERRI A. RYAN, ESQ. One Oxford Centre 301 Grant Street, 14th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15219 TELEPHONIC APPEARANCES: For the Debtors: Jones Day By: JOHN H. CHASE, ESQ. 2727 North Harwood Street Dallas, TX 75201 Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A. By: DANIEL DeFRANCESCHI, ESQ. ZACHERY SHAPIRO, ESQ. 920 North King Street Wilmington, DE 19801 For the Committee of Montgomery, McCracken, Walker & Asbestos Personal Injury Rhoads Claimants: By: LAURIE KREPTO, ESQ. DAVIS L. WRIGHT, ESQ. 123 South Broad Street Philadelphia, PA 19109 For Wachovia Capital Otterbourg, Steindler Houston Finance Corp.: & Rosen, P.C. By: ANDREW M. KRAMER, ESQ. ROBERT GONNELLO, ESQ, 230 Park Avenue, 29th Floor New York, NY 10169 WWW.JJCOURT.COM

98

4 TELEPHONIC APPEARANCES (Cont’d): For the U.S. Trustee: Office of the U.S. Trustee By: RICHARD L. SCHEPACARTER, ESQ. J. Caleb Boggs Federal Building 844 King Street, Suite 2313 Lockbox 35 Wilmington, DE 19801 For Honeywell: McDermott Will & Emery By: NAVA HAZAN, ESQ. 340 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10173 For Bondex: Bondex By: JACK FLEMING Financial Advisors for The Blackstone Group the Debtors: By: JAMIE O’CONNELL PAUL SHEAFFER DANIEL CASIERO 345 Park Avenue New York, NY 10154 Interested Party: Klehr, Harrison, Harvey & Branzburg By: DOMENIC PACITTI, ESQ. 919 Market Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Interested Party: Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe By: JONATHAN P. GUY, ESQ. KATHLEEN A. ORR, ESQ. RICHARD H. WYRON, ESQ. 1152 15th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005 Interested Party: Hughes, Hubbard & Reed LLP By: LAUREN ASCHER, ESQ. One Battery Park Plaza New York, NY 10004 WWW.JJCOURT.COM

99

5 TELEPHONIC APPEARANCES (Cont’d): Interested Party, Dryvit Dryvit Systems Systems: By: NIKKI WAKEMAN For Asbestos Plaintiffs: James F. Humphreys & Associates By: BRONWYN RINEHART, ESQ. United Center, Suite 800 500 Virginia Street East Charleston, WV 25301 - - - WWW.JJCOURT.COM

100

Feingold - Direct/Houff 52 1 THE COURT: Redirect? 2 MR. JACKSON: No, Your Honor. May the witness be 3 excused? 4 THE COURT: Anyone planning to call the witness 5 again? 6 (No audible response) 7 THE COURT: You’re excused. Thank you. 8 THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honor. 9 MR. HOUFF: Your Honor, may I be excused to go get 10 Dr. Feingold and bring him to the stand. 11 THE COURT: Yes, do you need a recess? We’ll go -- 12 MR. HOUFF: No, I think we’re pretty good. I just 13 want to make sure that -- okay, I’ll be fine I think. Let me14 just make sure my -- I’m fine, if I may be excused. 15 THE COURT: Yes. 16 DR. ALLAN FEINGOLD, WITNESS, SWORN 17 COURT CLERK: You may be seated. Please speak into 18 the microphone. 19 MR. HOUFF: The middle button. 20 THE WITNESS: Okay. Good morning. 21 MR. HOUFF: Got it, perfect. 22 DIRECT EXAMINATION 23 BY MR. HOUFF: 24 Q Good morning, Dr. Feingold. Would you introduce yourself25 to the Court, please?

101

Feingold - Direct/Houff 53 1 A Good morning. My name is Dr. Allan Feingold and I am a 2 lung specialist, a physician in practice in Miami, Florida. 3 Q Okay. Dr. Feingold, I have asked you to bring with you to4 the witness stand several documents that I am going to also5 provide to the Court and counsel as demonstrative, do you have6 an affidavit that you completed? 7 A Yes, sir, I do. 8 Q Okay. And do you also have your curriculum vitae? 9 A I do. 10 Q And a copy of your initial report dated August 14th, 2012? 11 A Correct. Yes, I do. 12 Q A copy of your rebuttal report dated September 21, 2012? 13 A Yes, sir. 14 Q And a presentation, a PowerPoint presentation that we --15 you had prepared for today? 16 A Correct. I have it in paper form and I see it’s on the17 computer. 18 Q Okay. 19 MR. HOUFF: Thank Your Honor. Your Honor, with your 20 permission, I’d like to approach and provide these documents to21 the Court. The affidavit is Debtors’ Demonstrative 19, the22 curriculum vitae is Debtors’ Exhibit 126 which I will move as23 soon as the doctor agrees or agrees that it’s accurate, 24 Debtors’ Demonstrative 20 is the report dated August 14, 25 Debtors’ Demonstrative 21 is the rebuttal report and Debtors’

102

Feingold - Direct/Houff 116 1 an explanation. When you present a paper like Mancuso, or 2 Sturm, or Yano, and you say, look, it’s just chrysotile that’s3 causing mesothelioma, and yet somebody comes along later and4 looks at the lung tissue and says, oh, my goodness, these paper5 -- these cases that you thought were chrysotile only exposed,6 they have crocidolite in their lungs. That’s what’s been done7 again and again. So that’s the reason that you’re having this8 problem. It’s actually simple. There is evidence of a 9 chrysotile induction of mesothelioma. And that’s not because I10 say it. It’s because the published literature says it. 11 Q Would you agree with me that there are well-credentialed,12 well-read experts, who have a different opinion than you that13 are actually going to come into this court and say, you know,14 we’ve heard what Dr. Feingold says but it’s our opinion --15 A And they’re going to have a big problem when faced with16 the literature, aren’t they? Because it’s not about people and17 it’s not about credentials. You think that somebody more18 famous is more important. The facts are what’s important. 19 It’s not a consensus issue either. This is not a popularity20 contest. If everybody agrees, if ten people agree, oh, yes,21 chrysotile can cause mesothelioma because I heard that in22 medical school. No, well, you know, let’s look at the lung23 tissue. Oops, here’s crocidolite. Oops, here’s amosite. 24 Again, again, and again, the facts are important and the facts25 don’t lie. It’s not the issue of the individual people --

103

Feingold - Direct/Houff 117 1 Q Now, you’ve come in the courtroom -- 2 A -- credentialed or not. 3 Q You’ve come in the courtrooms across the United States and4 you’ve given the exact same testimony that you’ve given here5 today, correct? 6 A Well, it varies to some extent with specifics, but the 7 concept -- conceptually, yes, I’ve previously said show me one8 article that demonstrates the cause and effect relationship. 9 Like, you know, I -- the tobacco industry says, show me one10 article that demonstrates a cause and effect relationship11 between cigarette smoking and lung cancer X, Y, or Z, and I12 don’t show them one. I show them 25. 13 Q Would you -- 14 A Meeting the Bradford Hill criteria. 15 Q Would you -- 16 A So I’m saying to you, sure, let’s see one case. 17 Q Would you agree with me that despite the fact that you’ve18 come in and offered this testimony, there are juries who 19 despite your testimony still conclude that exposure to 20 chrysotile asbestos caused the disease and in fact they award21 money for that, could you agree with that simple proposition,22 yes or no? 23 A I think you’re right on that simplistic demonstration, but24 I don’t think that that speaks to the realities involved. And25 I don’t think that the collection of people serving on the jury

104

313 C E R T I F I C A T I O N We, AMY L. RENTNER, WENDY ANTOSIEWICZ, KELLI PHILBURN, and ANDREA FOY, court approved transcribers, certifythat the foregoing is a correct transcript from the officialelectronic sound recording of the proceedings in the above-entitled matter, and to the best of our ability. /s/ Amy L. Rentner AMY L. RENTNER /s/ Wendy Antosiewicz WENDY ANTOSIEWICZ /s/ Kelli Philburn KELLI PHILBURN /s/ Andrea Foy ANDREA FOY J&J COURT TRANSCRIBERS, INC. DATE: January 17, 2013

105

EXHIBIT H

106

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION CONFIDENTIAL PORTIONS INCLUDED IN RE: ) ) GARLOCK SEALING TECHNOLOGIES ) LLC, et al, ) No. 10-BK-31607 ) Debtors. ) VOLUME V-A _____________________________) MORNING SESSION TRANSCRIPT OF ESTIMATION TRIAL BEFORE THE HONORABLE GEORGE R. HODGES UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE JULY 26, 2013 CONFIDENTIAL PORTIONS INCLUDED: APPEARANCES: On Behalf of Debtors: GARLAND S. CASSADA, ESQ. Robinson Bradshaw & Hinson, PA 101 North Tryon Street, Suite 1900 Charlotte, North Carolina 28246 JONATHAN C. KRISKO, ESQ. Robinson Bradshaw & Hinson PA 101 North Tryon Street, Suite 1900 Charlotte, North Carolina 28246 LOUIS ADAM BLEDSOE, III, ESQ. Robinson Bradshaw & Hinson PA 101 North Tryon Street, Suite 1900 Charlotte, North Carolina 28246 RICHARD C. WORF, ESQ. Robinson Bradshaw & Hinson, PA 101 North Tryon Street, Suite 1900 Charlotte, North Carolina 28246

107

APPEARANCES (Continued): On Behalf of the Debtors: RAY HARRIS, ESQ. Schachter Harris, LLP 400 East Las Colinas Blvd. Irving, Texas 75039 CARY SCHACHTER, ESQ. Schachter Harris, LLP 400 East Las Colinas Blvd. Irving, Texas 75039 C. RICHARD RAYBURN, JR., ESQ. Rayburn Cooper & Durham, PA 227 West Trade Street, Suite 1200 Charlotte, North Carolina 28202 SHELLEY KOON ABEL, ESQ. Rayburn Cooper & Durham, PA 227 West Trade Street, Suite 1200 Charlotte, North Carolina 28202 ALBERT F. DURHAM, ESQ. Rayburn Cooper & Durham, PA 227 West Trade Street, Suite 1200 Charlotte, North Carolina 28202 ROSS ROBERT FULTON, ESQ. Rayburn Cooper & Durham, PA 227 West Trade Street, Suite 1200 Charlotte, North Carolina 28202 JOHN R. MILLER, JR., ESQ. Rayburn Cooper & Durham, PA 227 West Trade Street, Suite 1200 Charlotte, North Carolina 28202 ASHLEY K. NEAL, ESQ. Rayburn Cooper & Durham, PA 227 West Trade Street, Suite 1200 Charlotte, North Carolina 28202 WILLIAM SAMUEL SMOAK, JR., ESQ. Rayburn Cooper & Durham, PA 227 West Trade Street, Suite 1200 Charlotte, North Carolina 28202

108

APPEARANCES (Continued.): On Behalf of Interested Parties: Carson Protwall LP: JULIE BARKER PAPE, ESQ. Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, PLLC P.O. Drawer 84 Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27102 Coltec Industries Inc.: DANIEL GRAY CLODFELTER, ESQ. Moore & Van Allen, PLLC 100 North Tryon Street, Suite 4700 Charlotte, North Carolina 28202-4003 HILLARY B. CRABTREE, ESQ. Moore & Van Allen, PLLC 100 North Tryon Street, Suite 4700 Charlotte, North Carolina 28202-4003 MARK A. NEBRIG, ESQ. Moore & Van Allen, PLLC 100 North Tryon Street, Suite 4700 Charlotte, North Carolina 28202-4003 EDWARD TAYLOR STUKES, ESQ. Moore & Van Allen, PLLC 100 North Tryon Street, Suite 4700 Charlotte, North Carolina 28202-4003 Creditor Committees: Official Committee of Asbestos Personal Injury Claimants: LESLIE M. KELLEHER, ESQ. Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered One Thomas Circle NW, Suite 1100 Washington, DC 20005 JEANNA RICKARDS KOSKI, ESQ. Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered One Thomas Circle NW, Suite 1100 Washington, DC 20005

109

APPEARANCES (Continued.): Official Committee of Asbestos Personal Injury Claimaints: JEFFREY A. LIESEMER, ESQ. Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered One Thomas Circle NW, Suite 1100 Washington, DC 20005 KEVIN C. MACLAY, ESQ. Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered One Thomas Circle NW, Suite 1100 Washington, DC 20005 TODD E. PHILLIPS, ESQ. Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered One Thomas Circle NW, Suite 1100 Washington, DC 20005 TREVOR W. SWETT, ESQ. Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered One Thomas Circle NW, Suite 1100 Washington, DC 20005 JAMES P. WEHNER, ESQ. Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered One Thomas Circle NW, Suite 1100 Washington, DC 20005 ELIHU INSELBUCH, ESQ. Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered 600 Lexington Avenue, 21st Floor New York, New York 10022 NATHAN D. FINCH, ESQ. Motley Rice, LLC 1000 Potomac Street, NW, Suite 150 Washington, DC 20007 GLENN C. THOMPSON, ESQ. Hamilton Stephens Steele & Martin 201 South College Street, Suite 2020 Charlotte, North Carolina 28244-2020 TRAVIS W. MOON, ESQ. Moon Wright & Houston, PLLC 227 West Trade Street, Suite 1800 Charlotte, North Carolina 28202

110

APPEARANCES (Continued.): Official Committee of Asbestos Personal Injury Claimaints: RICHARD S. WRIGHT, ESQ. Moon Wright & Houston, PLLC 226 West Trade Street, Suite 1800 Charlotte, North Carolina 28202 ANDREW T. HOUSTON, ESQ. Moon Wright & Houston, PLLC 227 West Trade Street, Suite 1800 Charlotte, North Carolina 28202 SCOTT L. FROST, ESQ. Waters Kraus, LLP 222 North Sepulveda Boulevard, Suite 1900 El Segundo, California 90245 JONATHAN A. GEORGE, ESQ. Waters Kraus, LLP 3219 McKinney Avenue Dallas, Texas 75204 Future Asbestos Claimaints: KATHLEEN A. ORR, ESQ. Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP 1152 15th Street, N.W., Columbia Center Washington, DC 20005-1706 JONATHAN P. GUY, ESQ. Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP 1152 15th Street, N.W., Columbia Center Washington, DC 20005-1706 Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors: DEBORAH L. FLETCHER, ESQ. FSB Fisher Broyles, LLP 6000 Fairview Road, Suite 1200 Charlotte, North Carolina 28210

111

1 I N D E X DEBTORS' WITNESS: PAGE 2 3 LESTER BRICKMAN 4 Direct Examination By Mr. Cassada 1134 Voir Dire Examination By Mr. Inselbuch 1142 5 Cross Examination By Mr. Inselbuch 1208 6 * * * * * * 7 E X H I B I T S 8 PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBITS: NO. ADMITTED 9 0969 ................................................1148 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

112

1 P R O C E E D I N G S 2 JULY 26, 2013, COURT CALLED TO ORDER 9:00 A.M.: 3 MORNING SESSION: 4 THE COURT: Good morning. 5 ALL COUNSEL: Good morning. 6 THE COURT: Have a seat we'll get started. 7 MR. CASSADA: Good morning, Your Honor. Thanks for 8 agreeing to a little bit earlier start today. 9 Your Honor, we're shifting gears now from the 10 physical sciences to the social sciences as we are putting on11 our estimation case. We're going to call this morning 12 Professor Lester Brickman of the Cardozo Law School. 13 Professor. 14 At some point in Professor Brickman's testimony we 15 will be getting into material that the parties have designated16 as confidential. 17 THE COURT: All right. You just tell me that and 18 we'll exclude that part of it and then -- we'll exclude people19 for that part of it. Let us know when you can reopen. 20 MR. CASSADA: Okay. Thank you. 21 LESTER BRICKMAN, 22 Being first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows: 23 DIRECT EXAMINATION 24 BY MR. CASSADA: 25 Q. Good morning, Professor Brickman. Would you introduceLaura Andersen, RMR 704-350-7493

113

1 yourself to the court. 2 A. Yes. I am Lester Brickman. 3 Q. Where do you reside? 4 A. I reside in New York City. 5 Q. What is your profession? 6 A. I'm a law school professor. 7 Q. How long have you taught law? 8 A. Since 1965, that would make it 48 years. 9 Q. Would you describe your principal subjects that you teach10 in law school? 11 A. Well, currently, and actually over a long period of time12 I teach the first year course in contracts. I used to teach13 legal ethics, renamed professional responsibility after the14 Watergate era. I currently teach a seminar on selected 15 problems in professional responsibility and the legal 16 profession. I also teach land use planning. 17 Q. Would you please briefly describe your educational 18 background? 19 A. I attended Carnegie Tech, now called Carnegie Melon where20 I received a Bachelor of Science in 1961. I attended the21 University of Florida law school and received a JD in 1964. 22 And I attended Yale and took an L.LM in 1965. 23 Q. What is the basis for your experience in asbestos 24 litigation? 25 A. Well, I have conducted research and published scholarshipLaura Andersen, RMR 704-350-7493

114

1 exposures in the cases filed against Garlock. 2 Q. Is it your opinion that all of Garlock's settlements were 3 infected with such nondisclosure? 4 A. No. I certainly can't extend my opinion to that extent. 5 My opinion's really focusing on the big dollar cases. 6 And the big dollar cases, as I see it, as well as the 7 nonmalignant cases that Garlock paid substantial funds to 8 settle, were what drove the bankruptcy. 9 Q. Now Professor Brickman, you've written extensively for10 over a decade about an entrepreneurial model for asbestos11 claim. Would you please briefly explain to the court what12 this is? 13 A. Yes. Traditionally in personal injury litigation, 14 somebody is injured, gets treated by a doctor, and then may15 consult a lawyer for -- to assess whether he has a claim 16 against somebody for damages. 17 Starting about the early to mid 1980s, a very noted 18 plaintiff's counsel came up with a better mouse trap, if you19 will. His name was Dickie Scruggs, a name that most of you20 know. And he invented what I call the entrepreneurial system. 21 And it consists of mass screenings, going out to get the 22 clients, rather than waiting for them to come into the office. 23 Mass screenings done at union halls at strip shopping malls,24 in a variety of places where a screening company brings in a25 truck with a portable x-ray machine or machines and Laura Andersen, RMR 704-350-7493

115

1 administers x-rays on a mass basis. 2 A doctor who is a specialist in reading chest x-rays may 3 be present on the truck and reads the x-rays every 30 seconds 4 or every minute, or the x-rays are collected and sent to one 5 of these, what I call "litigation doctors" to read in their 6 offices. From what I observed the rate of reading of these 7 x-rays was sometimes 70, 80, 90 an hour, sometimes. 8 More and my research indicates that the doctor's x-ray 9 reads were not -- were invalid. That is to say, the 10 percentage of positive x-ray reads. By positive I mean that11 they found fibrosis in the lung, consistent with asbestosis12 was off the charts. My research indicated somewhere in the13 range of 50 to 90 percent, which is far, far in excess of what14 most medical studies have stone. 15 And in deed, there were seven clinical studies or their 16 equivalent in which the very x-rays that the litigation 17 doctors read were reread by neutral x-ray readers who mostly18 found error rates in the 90 percent range. 19 Judge Janis Jack who presided over the silica MDL which I20 probably will comment on shortly, found that Dr. Ray Heron,21 for example, read 99 percent of the silicosis x-rays as 22 positive for silicosis having previously read asbestos --23 x-rays taken for asbestos purposes, 96 percent positive. 24 When OSHA researchers, with regard to rubber 25 manufacturer's employees, found that when they reread x-raysLaura Andersen, RMR 704-350-7493

116

1 read by the plaintiff doctors as 60 percent positive, were 2 something like .2 percent positive. 3 So a core element, one of the core elements of the 4 entrepreneurial system is cadre of doctors who misread the 5 x-rays, to use the words of Judge Jack, "who manufactured 6 diagnosis for money." 7 Another part of the entrepreneurial system is the filing 8 of hundreds and thousands of claims in specified courts around 9 the country which were known for their pro-plaintiff 10 proclivities and resulting in many cases in courts 11 consolidating cases in ways that were very deleterious to12 interest of defendants, deprived them of the opportunity to13 really defend cases on their merits, resulted in strategies of14 settlement -- inventory settlements by the hundreds and by the15 thousands. 16 And perhaps most important for purposes of my testimony 17 today, was the way in which plaintiffs -- plaintiff's counsel18 prepared plaintiffs and their witnesses to testify at 19 depositions. 20 As I report in my scholarship quite extensively, these 21 ways in which plaintiffs were instructed, included implanting22 false memories as to what products they were exposed to, and23 what products they were instructed not to say they were 24 exposed to. A variety of information of that sort which I25 probably will comment on more shortly. Laura Andersen, RMR 704-350-7493

117

1 Q. When did you first raise concerns about the 2 entrepreneurial model and the questionable mass screenings 3 that you described? 4 A. Well, in my first major article on asbestos litigation -- 5 it's one of the two articles I wrote for the administrative 6 conference, the one in which I dealt with asbestos litigation, 7 what I understood going on -- I had an inkling about what was 8 going on. It seemed pretty apparent to me. But I didn't have 9 enough information to reach a firm conclusion. That took a10 number of years of extensive research reading hundreds and11 hundreds of transcripts of proceedings of motion practice, of12 expert reports, of transcripts, of hearings, deposition 13 transcripts, trial transcripts, et cetera. 14 And over that period of time, over a decade I came to the15 firm conclusion that -- that these x-ray readings were indeed16 manufactured for money. And to put it more bluntly, they were17 fraudulent. 18 Q. I'm going to ask you more about this later, but it is 19 your opinion that some of the features of this entrepreneurial20 model have carried over and persisted during the 2000s in21 relation to claims filed by cancer claimants? 22 A. It is my opinion that some of the features of the 23 entrepreneurial system as I've described it, have been 24 incorporated into malignancy litigation. 25 Q. Were your concerns about the way that nonmalignant claimsLaura Andersen, RMR 704-350-7493

118

1 were being pursued, were those concerns eventually confirmed 2 in a court of law? 3 A. In 2004 I published an article in a symposium issued on 4 asbestos litigation that appeared in the "Pepperdine Law 5 Review". And I laid out my -- the evidence that I was basing 6 my opinion on quite extensively. It was a quite long and 7 packed article with many, many, many footnotes, some of them 8 running on for pages. 9 And the opinions I offered, the conclusions I stated were10 confirmed the following year when Judge Jack, Janis Jack of11 U.S. District Court judge in Texas, was appointed to head the12 silicosis MDL, MDL 1553. And she made findings that were13 issued in a report in which she wrote the report for the 14 benefit of state courts. And Judge Jack was a former nurse15 who was offended by what she saw, what -- that the doctors16 were doing. She's married to a cardiologist. She has a 17 medical background, and that impelled her to write, I think it18 was a 200-page report that largely confirmed my own findings19 about the fraud that was taking place in asbestos litigation. 20 Indeed, as you have up on the screen, the last line, "it 21 is clear that the lawyers, doctors, and screening companies22 were all willing participants." 23 Now of course she's talking about silicosis litigation 24 there. But she also added, "and the same thing applies to25 asbestos litigation." Laura Andersen, RMR 704-350-7493

119

1 And indeed, I wrote an article immediately after Judge 2 Jack's opinion or report was issued, indicating how her report 3 applied, as well, to asbestos litigation. We had the same 4 lawyers. We had the same doctors. We had the same screening 5 companies. We had the same MO. Everything was the same. It 6 was the same osis. It was just the prefix that was different. 7 Q. Were the x-rays that were used in silica litigation the 8 same x-rays that were used to screen asbestos claims? 9 A. In order to gin up these fraudulent silicosis claims, 10 there were 20,000 filed in Mississippi and Texas, mostly, in a11 very extraordinary necessarily short period of time, 10,000 of12 which were in the MDL. 13 What the plaintiff lawyers and the screening companies 14 did was, that they took the persons who had they had filed15 asbestosis claims for, and in many cases gotten paid 16 settlement monies and so on, they took those asbestosis cases17 and retread them as silicosis case. As I said, just changed18 the prefix, still the same osis. 19 And in some cases, the very same chest x-ray readers who 20 had read the x-ray as indicating consistent with asbestosis,21 reread the same x-ray and said it's consistent with silicosis. 22 Leaving Judge Jack to inquire during the Daubert hearing that23 she presided over -- an unprecedented Daubert hearing -- to24 ask one of the doctors whether the silicosis had cured the25 asbestosis, since the doctor no longer mentioned asbestosis. Laura Andersen, RMR 704-350-7493

120

1 It turns out that one of the doctors who has read the 2 most x-rays, Dr. Ray Heron was doing dual readings. He would 3 read one x-ray and write a report saying consistent with 4 asbestosis, and that would go to one law firm. And then he 5 would write a report at the same time saying consistent with 6 silicosis and that would go to another law firm which happened 7 to have been a captive an offset of the first law firm I'm 8 referring to, which I've written about extensively. That's 9 just some of the highlights of the silicosis fraud. 10 Were it not for Judge Jack's persistence in demanding 11 access to records that have never before been produced in this12 litigation, that fraud would have succeeded, in my opinion,13 and it would have been worth at least a billion dollars to the14 plaintiff's bar. 15 So I think that she did a great service. One that I 16 think would rarely -- other judges would probably not have17 done, simply because -- as I said, she wrote a report, not an18 opinion. Because she concluded, correctly of course, that the19 vast majority of the cases in the MDL had been improperly20 removed from state to federal court where they were then 21 assembled into the MDL, and that therefore she did not have22 jurisdiction. But she felt so angry at what she saw the 23 doctors were doing in this case, and she did see it because24 she presided over these Daubert hearings extensively. And she25 felt compelled to write a report so that state court judges toLaura Andersen, RMR 704-350-7493

121

1 who these cases would be going back to, would know the results 2 of her medical inquiries. 3 Q. Now Professor Brickman, we don't see many nonmalignant 4 claims filed these days, or at least in the years before the 5 petition. 6 Prior to Judge Jack's opinion, approximately how many 7 claims were being filed on an annual basis? 8 A. Well, the number kept increasing almost exponentially. 9 At its height, I think in 2003, I recall that there were over10 100,000 claims filed with the Manville Trust. Of course those11 claims were filed, the screenings that generated those claims12 took place a year, two years, three years earlier. 13 But every year the number of claims being generated by 14 screenings, the number of non-malignancy claims were 15 increasing, because lawyers became aware that there was nobody16 minding the store, so to speak. That they could say anything. 17 They could get away with anything, literally, because these18 cases would not be tried. They would all be settled in 19 inventory settlements. 20 In fact, in some cases the payments were made even 21 without filing any claims. There was an arrangement between22 the plaintiff's bar and some of the defendants that they 23 would -- the plaintiff's bar would simply present a list of24 their inventory and the defendant would pay. 25 In any event, when Judge Jack issued her opinion present Laura Andersen, RMR 704-350-7493

122

1 in the courtroom -- conducted the proceedings, present in the 2 courtroom was an assistant U.S. Attorney from the Southern 3 District of New York, and on the basis of what occurred in 4 that courtroom and other basis, a grand jury was convened in 5 New York. Word got out, the "New York Times" wrote about 6 that. Judge Jack's opinion or report was widely cited, and 7 that scared off the plaintiffs' lawyers from conducting 8 further screenings. 9 In addition as I noted before, there was a change from 10 finding asbestosis to finding silicosis, and that was 11 motivated by concern by the screening companies and the 12 plaintiff lawyers doing screenings, that the so called Hatch13 Act, named off Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah when he was 14 chairman of the Judiciary Committee had a good chance of 15 passing, and that was going to put the kibosh to asbestos16 screenings. 17 Q. So I take it that the silica litigation never took off? 18 A. No, it did not. 19 Q. And the opinion and the proceedings in the silica 20 litigation had a profound impact on the nonmalignant claiming21 practices that you described before? 22 A. As I indicated, it pretty much resulted in the cessation23 of virtually all screenings. 24 Q. Now you mentioned that Manville -- the Manville Trust was25 getting tens of thousands of these nonmalignant claims everyLaura Andersen, RMR 704-350-7493

123

1 year. Were these claims also being presented to defendants in 2 the tort system? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. What financial impact did the mass screenings have on 5 asbestos litigation? 6 A. It had a profound impact. It drove the bankruptcies in 7 the time period up through 2001, 2002. Ultimately the 8 malignancy claims would become the driving force. 9 But from let's say 1988 until 2002, 2003 the driving 10 force in asbestos litigation was nonmalignant claims. And11 that -- it was the volume of these claims that drove the 12 dozens and dozens of bankruptcies including the nine 13 bankruptcies in 2000 and 2001 that are of great significance14 with regard to this estimation proceeding. 15 Q. Let me ask you to look at the demonstrative. This is a16 listing of the bankruptcy cases that were filed during the17 decade of 2000s. You talked about the non-top tier 18 defendants. That's actually a term that we've used in this19 case. I believe it was actually coined by the expert for the20 committee in this case, a Dr. Mark Peterson. 21 Those claims in yellow, do you recognize those as the top22 tier defendants? 23 A. Yes. I would agree with Dr. Peterson that those nine 24 including Turner, Newell and Federal Mogul, two of the 25 bankruptcies. Laura Andersen, RMR 704-350-7493

124

1 Q. How would you describe their role in asbestos litigation 2 at the time of the bankruptcies? 3 A. Up to the time of bankruptcies, those were the leading 4 defendants. They paid most of the money in compensation with 5 regard to the nonmalignant claims and malignant claims. 6 But the ratio of nonmalignant to malignant claims was 7 somewhere in the ratio of 9:1. Out of every 100 claims, 90 8 would be nonmalignant and 10 would be malignant, by and large. 9 And so, when these nine companies went bankrupt, Babcock 10 and Wilcox, I believe, in February of 2000, and then 11 Pittsburgh Corning in April, and then Owens Corning and Owens12 Corning Fibreboard in October, and then Armstrong World 13 Industries, et cetera. Then you had the followups in 2001,14 that took out from the tort system the main players and 15 payers. That had a profound effect on the companies that were16 left in -- the solvent companies that were left in the tort17 system. 18 Q. Let me ask you, why were these companies the main payers? 19 A. Because they produced products that had high percentages20 of amphibole asbestos. 21 Q. Now, some of them, let's look at USG Corp, that produced22 a joint compound that was otherwise highly friable. Did that23 company receive a lot of claims? 24 A. Yes, absolutely yes. All of those companies received 25 tens of thousands of claims. Laura Andersen, RMR 704-350-7493

125

1 Q. Okay. 2 A. Well, actually in total, hundreds of thousands of claims. 3 Q. Now, we've got a list of bankruptcy cases here, and there 4 have been bankruptcy cases filed by asbestos defendants in the 5 past, hadn't there? 6 A. Yes, starting with -- Manville was the second bankruptcy, 7 but it was the big kahuna at the time, followed by several, I 8 think, a dozen or more leading up to this bankruptcy wave in 9 2000/2001. And then followed by quite a few other 10 bankruptcies as you show listed on the screen. 11 Q. Have there been anything like the magnitude of these 12 bankruptcy cases, the number and amount of compensation that13 left the system at one time? 14 A. Well, the Manville bankruptcy might have been comparable,15 because Manville was the key player at the time, again, in16 terms of payments. 17 But I think this is -- these nine bankruptcies were -- 18 had the most profound effect on asbestos litigation. 19 Q. You talked about them having an effect on the companies20 remaining in the tort system. Would you describe that to the21 judge? 22 A. Well, when these nine companies left the tort system, of23 course ultimately they were going to be 524(g) trusts created,24 but that would take three, four, five, six years, in some25 cases even longer. And so there was a lean period from theLaura Andersen, RMR 704-350-7493

126

1 point of view of the plaintiff's bar, and they overcame that 2 leanness by targeting various solvent companies as replacement 3 funding entities, to continue the flow of funds to the 4 plaintiffs and the plaintiff's bar with regard to asbestos 5 claims. 6 Q. Let me go back to Garlock and the nonmalignant filings 7 that you've testified about. 8 Have you studied the impact of the mass screening of 9 nonmalignant claims on Garlock? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. What have you found? 12 A. Well, first I found that -- that Garlock has paid out 13 somewhere in the range of 1.3, $1.4 billion for asbestos 14 claims. And that of that, somewhere around $1 billion of15 that, in the range of $1 billion was paid for nonmalignant16 claims. 17 So the vast bulk of the money that Garlock paid out over 18 time, was for what I have termed "fraudulent", for the most19 part, nonmalignant claims. 20 Q. Now the billion dollars with nonmalignant, does that 21 include legal fees as well? 22 A. Yes, it does. 23 Q. Okay. And so the 1.4, $1.4 billion includes just 24 indemnity claims? 25 A. Just indemnity, yes. Laura Andersen, RMR 704-350-7493

127

1 Q. Okay. You use the word "targeted". What do you mean 2 when you say defendants were targeted? 3 A. Well, it refers to the process of -- the litigation 4 process where the plaintiff's bar focuses on a company and 5 decides to elevate that company's status in tort litigation. 6 They may expend more resources in ferreting out information. 7 But there's a variety of ways in which a company is 8 targeted. In my report I go in extensively into how Garlock 9 was targeted. And I won't go into it at this point, but it10 certainly involves the suppression of exposure information,11 particularly exposures by -- to products of Babcock and 12 Wilcox, and Pittsburgh Corning, and Owens Corning, and 13 Fibreboard, and Armstrong World Industries, and WR Grace, and14 US Gypsum, and Turner Newell, Federal Mogul and GAF. 15 Q. Now, what has become of the top tier defendants and other16 companies that file bankruptcy for bankruptcy relief in the17 wake of those companies? 18 A. Well, ultimately they emerge from bankruptcy, ultimately19 could be three, four, five, six, seven, eight years, having20 formed 524(g) trusts with their assets, they emerge free of21 any asbestos liability, and all asbestos claims that were22 pending at the time of the bankruptcy and any future claims23 based upon exposure to their products, are channeled to the24 trust. 25 Q. And so have we seen a rather dramatic expansion to theLaura Andersen, RMR 704-350-7493

128

1 MR. INSELBUCH: Yes, Your Honor. 2 THE COURT: Come back at 2:00. 3 (Lunch recess at 1:00 p.m.) 4 * * * * * * UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER 6 7 I, Laura Andersen, Official Court Reporter, certify that the foregoing transcript is a true and correct transcript 8 of the proceedings taken and transcribed by me to the best of my ability. 9 Dated this the 27th day of July, 2013. 10 11 s/Laura Andersen 12 Laura Andersen, RMR Official Court Reporter 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

129